Has anyone been brave enough to pay for info on how to "revive" cordless
toll batteries that no longer hold a charge?
This guy is selling this "info" On Ebay for $12.95 and has a 99.7% feedback.
Can this be true?
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=632&item=4389110247&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW
Gene
--
This message has been scanned by Norton Anti-virus software
"Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> If it were true, don't you think the manufacturers would have figured out
> how to do it and make money on the process? This smells like the infamous
> Fish carburetor of long ago. You know, the one that got 50-60 mpg as a
> bolt-on.
> Bob
Hey, it works, When I added the water injector from JC Whitney, my mileage
went up to 70 mpg. They I added that fan thingies under the carb, plus a
special ingredient in the gas tank and I'm getting 82 mpg on a regular
basis. I can't wait for the Fire Ring spark plugs to get here. My goal is
to top 100 mpg.
In article <[email protected]>, Juergen Hannappel <[email protected]> wrote:
>Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Doug Miller wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>, Juergen Hannappel
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >To answer you last question: Yes...
>>> >The economy needs a restructuring so that it provides work and supply
>>> >for all *without economic growth*, otherwise there will be no future
>>> >worth living in.
>>> >
>>> In order for that to work, there must also be no population growth. How do
> you
>>> propose to achieve *that*?
>>
>> Plus, I doubt the folks in the third world countries will continue to be
>> content with that scenario even if their populations <were> to somehow
>> magically become stable...
>
>
>Of course economic growth in the hird world is still necessary, but in
>the developped part the situation is different; and having an economy
>whose main interest is growth also in the third world will not work in
>the long term.
>How to stabilize populations I have no viable idea other than
>education, ironically also economic growth, awareness-raising and
>abandoning ploicies like the global gag rule.
So zero economic growth requires zero population growth, and we achieve zero
population growth by greater-than-zero economic growth.
Right. I got it.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
on 6/24/2005 11:20 AM Patrick Conroy said the following:
> Unquestionably Confused <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>
>>Be very careful with this one. I installed one backwards by mistake
>>and my MPG decreased by 35%. Called J.C. Whitney and they
>
>
> Yeahbut it should'a worked fine if you moved to New Zealand, right?
Tried that, but the damn car sunk as soon as I left San Diego. Guess
we'll never know.
On 30 Jun 2005 15:04:28 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 06:36:32 -0500, Prometheus <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 27 Jun 2005 15:25:25 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Well, if it's going to be relevant when we're talking about a
>>>transportation device, yeah, it's kind of important.
>>>
>>>> VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 80.7
>>>> VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 80.7
>>>> CITROEN C1 1398 D 83.1
>>>> HONDA Insight 995 P/ E 94.2
>>>
>>>Would any of those pass USA'n crash tests?
>>
>> FORD New Focus 1560 D 70.6
>>
>> I sure hope so, considering the Ford dealership just sold me one.
>> Doesn't get 70 mpg, though. I've got 41 without A/C so far, though-
>> that's with the manual transmission and approximately 20% stop-and-go
>> city traffic. With the A/C on, it drops to about 32 mpg.
>
>So, why does this table show 70.6 and you see 41? Even the empirical
>vs. USA'n gallon size doesn't wash with the numbers.
That's a good question- the mfg sticker claims 35-51 hwy mpg. I have
no idea where the table came from in the first place. Could be they
used some kind of test that had nothing to do with real-world
conditions.
In article <[email protected]>, Juergen Hannappel <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>To answer you last question: Yes...
>The economy needs a restructuring so that it provides work and supply
>for all *without economic growth*, otherwise there will be no future
>worth living in.
>
In order for that to work, there must also be no population growth. How do you
propose to achieve *that*?
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > If it were true, don't you think the manufacturers would have figured out
> > how to do it and make money on the process? This smells like the infamous
> > Fish carburetor of long ago. You know, the one that got 50-60 mpg as a
> > bolt-on.
> > Bob
>
> Hey, it works, When I added the water injector from JC Whitney, my mileage
> went up to 70 mpg. They I added that fan thingies under the carb, plus a
> special ingredient in the gas tank and I'm getting 82 mpg on a regular
> basis. I can't wait for the Fire Ring spark plugs to get here. My goal is
> to top 100 mpg.
Yeah. And you have as much chance as there is of gas hitting $3 a
gallon. Oh. Whoops. That's later this summer. Maybe the new model year
will have a 100 MPG hybrid.
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 10:51:02 -0500, Puff Griffis <[email protected]>
wrote:
> My Batteries Plus store will not touch battery packs from cordless power tools. At least that's what the fellow told me in November last year. Could be the packs you brought in were not screwed together, rather a glued-up box? At least that was the kicker for my Batteries Plus store. Tom
Dave Hinz wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 17:32:01 GMT, CW <[email protected]> wrote:
> > You want something in print, you'll have to dig it up yourself. About a year
> > ago, there was an interview, on a radio talk show, with the maker of the
> > carburetor that had so much BS behind it. It was not represented as a "100
> > hundred mile per gallon" conversion. It wouldn't really improve anything on
> > a standard passenger car. It was intended for the RV market, where engines
> > were under a heavy load. The difference was the spraybar. It forced
> > atomization instead of relying on airflow as in a regular carb.
>
> Yes, that's what fuel injection does - improves atomization. Changes
> the surface area:mass ratio of the fuel. If you have unburned
> hydrocarbons, that would show up in the emissions. It doesn't,
> therefore there aren't massive quantities of unburned hydrocarbons with
> which to improve your mileage.
>
Depends also on when and where they were burned.
The Honda Controlled Velocity Combustion Chamber (CVCC) is (was?)
a very smart approach to fuel efficiency. The cylinder was fed a
very lean mixture--too lean for reliable spark ignition while the
spark plug was housed in a sort of antechamber atop the cylinder
which was fed with a rich mixture. The result was reliable ignition
of the rich mixture at the plug producing a flame front that reliably
ignited the lean mixture in the cylinder, which in turn burned up
the fuel almost completely during the power stroke. Overall the
engine burned leaner, and therefor more efficiently and cleaner
(as Mr Hinz notes the two go hand-in-hand).
My Honda FE got 50-52 mpg on the PA turnpike cruisig with traffic
at about 65 mph. That's a car, not a motorcycle.
--
FF
which received
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Michael Houghton) wrote:
> >
> >The response from the seller sounds a lot like he is trying to sell you
> >dehydrated water.
>
> Note that the response I posted was not from the seller, but from one of the
> *buyers*.
>
Uh, how confident are you that they are really two different people?
--
FF
Duane Bozarth wrote:
> Robert Bonomi wrote:
> ...
>
> > Have you ever run the numbers on how much biodiesel one can produce from
> > an acre of farmland in a year?
>
> Ethanol is better deal to date...
Made from corn? I have been wondering if it would not be better to
use sorghum, which grows well over much of the same range as corn,
for producing the sugar used to make ethanol.
--
FF
Robert Bonomi wrote:
> ...
>
> Automobile usage is a small part of total fuel consumption. like 1/5 or less.
> of vehicular use. well under 10% of all petroleum consumption, when you
> include oil-fired heating, farm implement, and marine use.
>
Moreover fuel does not account for all the petroleum used. Petroleum
is the single most important feedstock for organic chemicals like
virtually all synthetic fabrics, plastics and solvents.
Your arithmetic is quite sobering.
--
FF
Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Juergen Hannappel <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >To answer you last question: Yes...
> >The economy needs a restructuring so that it provides work and supply
> >for all *without economic growth*, otherwise there will be no future
> >worth living in.
> >
> In order for that to work, there must also be no population growth. How do you
> propose to achieve *that*?
>
Historically, three most important factors to reducing population
growth, in order of effectiveness have been shown to be:
1) Reduced infant/child mortality.
2) Improved general education (not indoctrination, the three R's, and
job-related education) especially for women.
3) Improved access to birth control, especially for women.
Absent immigration, France and Italy would have negative population
growth indeed, near the end of the 20th century they had the lowest
birth rates in the world. Hmm, maybe conversion to Catholocism would
help too.
There may be draconian measures that could reduce population growth
but the three stated above, appear to be more than adequate, few
people find them objectionable as a matter of priciple, and those
that do number in inverse proportion to the relative effectiveness.
Further, more draconian measures can backfire by fostering rebellion.
I recall that a cow-orker helped his sister-in-law and her family
emigrate from China to the US back in the 1990s. The couple
had twelve (12) children all under the age of 18, some born during
the period when childbirth in China was illegal, all born when
having more than one child was illegal.
I don't claim to have a deep understanding of the whys but the reasons
for the effectiveness of these factors seem to be:
1) Improved infant and child survival rates encourage parents to have
fewer children and to invest more in those they have (which feeds
back into the second factor.)
2) Improved education, especially for women, gives people, especially
women, something to which to dedicate their time besides making
babies.
3) Pretty much self-explanatory but the interesting thing is the
greater
effectiveness of the first too.
The principle obstacles to implimenting them seem to be that all three
and the resultant reduced population growth itself serve to reduce
the world population that is easily explaoitable for political and
especially for economic purposes.
--
FF
Duane Bozarth wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > Duane Bozarth wrote:
> > > Robert Bonomi wrote:
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > Have you ever run the numbers on how much biodiesel one can produce from
> > > > an acre of farmland in a year?
> > >
> > > Ethanol is better deal to date...
> >
> > Made from corn? I have been wondering if it would not be better to
> > use sorghum, which grows well over much of the same range as corn,
> > for producing the sugar used to make ethanol.
>
> Primarily corn, yes. Sorghum doesn't have nearly the sugar content of
> corn and nowhere nor the yield/acre.
I gather that the suagar/acre ration is lower for sorghum. I'm
not surprised that the corn kernals have a higher concentration
of sugar than the sorghum stalks but am surpised that there is
more sugar in the whole corn plant, than in the whole sorghum plant.
When corn is raised for ethanol production, do they squeeze the
whole plant, rather than just the kernals?
One wonders what selective breeding/genetic engineering can do for
each, improving the range for sorghum and the sugar content for
both. Appears it would take a ten-fold improvement in the yield
before biofuels could replace petroleum fuels and that still
does not address coals usage, which generates most of the electricity
used in the US.
--
FF
Duane Bozarth wrote:
> Morris Dovey wrote:
> ...
> > I wish I shared your confidence and optimism.
>
> ...
>
> The Court specifically allowed for States to set controls over such
> behavior
[the behaviour in question being abuse of emminent domain to effect
tranfer of ownership from one private party to another private party]
> and I strongly expect them to do so.
That's the problem, not the solution! Leaving it up to government
to decide who may keep their property and who must sell it to
another PRIVATE party is not only morally wrong it is also certain
to result in land-usage that favors short-term monetary profit at
the expense of anything else including what would be best for
society in the long run.
Agriculture will never be able to lobby as effectively for a
specific parcel of land as will 'developers'. The money to
be made per acre per election cycle for 'development' will
always be orders of magnitude greater than that made from
agriculture for the same acreage over the same election cycle.
duration of one election cycle. Now factor in the tax-revenue
generated per acre post-'developement' as compared to that
for farmland or, God forbid undeveloped land. Only that
rarest of creatures, a politician acting for the best long-term
interests of society, can resist all that.
--
FF
George wrote:
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 07:01:32 -0400, George <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> >
> >
> > No-till around here usually involves round-up or similar. Same where
> > you are? I suppose it kills the old whatever, while giving it more time
> > to decompose while the next crop is growing.
> >
> >
>
> Kills the weeds. Rolling it under used to reduce them enough to allow the
> crop to sprout and defend itself. Still, it's tough to use a cultipacker
> with corn stubble in place.
Corn stubble. A million years ago (well, about 33) I moved to
Wisconsin. Rented a farmhouse surrounded by acres of corn, which got
cut along about mid-October. I rode my OSSA Six Days up and down the
rows but since that part of Wisconsin has no hills, it was dull. So I
rode across the rows. Yumpin' yiminey! And you do NOT want to unload in
corn stubble.
Duane Bozarth wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > > Ethanol is better deal to date...
> > > >
> > > > Made from corn? I have been wondering if it would not be better to
> > > > use sorghum, which grows well over much of the same range as corn,
> > > > for producing the sugar used to make ethanol.
> > >
> > > Primarily corn, yes. Sorghum doesn't have nearly the sugar content of
> > > corn and nowhere nor the yield/acre.
> >
> > I gather that the suagar/acre ration is lower for sorghum. I'm
> > not surprised that the corn kernals have a higher concentration
> > of sugar than the sorghum stalks but am surpised that there is
> > more sugar in the whole corn plant, than in the whole sorghum plant.
> > When corn is raised for ethanol production, do they squeeze the
> > whole plant, rather than just the kernals?
>
> No, the grain is the feedstock, not the plant...the grain must ripen to
> achiece maximum energy content (and as a secondary necessity, must be
> dry enough to be handled and stored w/o danger of mold damage and
> spontaneous combustion) and at that time the sugars in the foliage are
> largely used up.
I'm surprised ther eis more sugar in corn kernals than in the entire
sorghum plant. I'm not clear on why the grain is stored at all. It
seems ot me it would be more efficient to continuously process it
as it is harvested and just tank the jiuce. E.g. make the 'squeezer'
part of the combine.
...
>
> As for central station generation, the switch from coal to
> petroleum-fired was a major mistake as well was the abandonment of
> nuclear which <should> be the predominant form of central station
> generation.
How much electricity is generated from petroleum here in the US today?
When I was in the industry it was all but nil. Coal was tops, followed
by hydro and nuclear (not sure of the order) and those three accounted
at least 90% of the electricity generated in the US.
--
FF
Howdy!
In article <yuyue.2317$HU.51@trnddc03>, dadiOH <[email protected]> wrote:
>Gene T wrote:
>> Has anyone been brave enough to pay for info on how to "revive"
>> cordless toll batteries that no longer hold a charge?
>
>NiCad batteries develop a "memory". If they are charged before being
>fully discharged, they will ultimately sort of "think" that they should
>be charged sooner than before. One way to remedy that is to *fully*
>discharge the battery then charge. No idea if that's what is being done
>by the device the guy is peddling.
>
That is bad advice.
Every now and then, it is a good idea to run the battery down to about
10%. Running it all the way down practically guarantees that at least
one of the cells will be fully discharged early and try to take a charge
in the wrong way, causing it damage.
The "memory" effect is overblown, being difficult to actually demonstrate.
DAGS for nicad memory effect...
yours,
Michael
--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
[email protected] | White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/wwap/
I heard a story about Mark Twain. It seems that he bought an automobile
and had a second gas tank installed, then disconnected the regular
one. He would drive into a gas station, fill the regular gas tank with
water, pop a little white pill into the water-filled tank, and drive
off. Don't know if it's true, but it makes a good story.
--Steve
Bob Schmall wrote:
> Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>
>> "Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>>> If it were true, don't you think the manufacturers would have figured
>>> out how to do it and make money on the process? This smells like the
>>> infamous Fish carburetor of long ago. You know, the one that got
>>> 50-60 mpg as a bolt-on.
>>> Bob
>>
>>
>>
>> Hey, it works, When I added the water injector from JC Whitney, my
>> mileage went up to 70 mpg. They I added that fan thingies under the
>> carb, plus a special ingredient in the gas tank and I'm getting 82 mpg
>> on a regular basis. I can't wait for the Fire Ring spark plugs to get
>> here. My goal is to top 100 mpg.
>>
> Ed,Ed,Ed...
> You've forgotten the pills that turn gas into water.
> Sort of a reverse Jesus with a half gainer.
>
> Bob
Howdy!
In article <[email protected]>,
Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 16:21:02 -0000, Michael Houghton <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The "memory" effect is overblown, being difficult to actually demonstrate.
>> DAGS for nicad memory effect...
>
>Come on over, I'll show you a real example. People have been saying for
>decades that it doesn't exist, and people have continued to experience
>it during all that time. A NiCd battery rejuvination produces
>measurable real results; if that's not from memory effect, what do you
>think it's from?
>
Rechargable batteries deteroriate in a variety of ways. Just because your
NiCad battery isn't putting out what you expect doesn't mean you are
suffering from the memory effect. Overcharging can do damage that results
in lower capacity.
The "memory effect" is specifically the result of repeatedly going through
a discharge/charge cycle that is (effectively) always a fixed percentage
of the battery's capacity. Consumer use of NiCad batteries is vanishingly
likely (read not hardly at all) to meet this strict requirement.
Charging too slowly, or allowing the battery to get too hot are other
species of mistreatment that harm capacity.
Now, "rejuvenitation" may well be able to repair some of these forms of
damage, but that doesn't mean that "memory" is involved.
Did you actually follow up on my "Do A Google Search" to see what I was
looking at?
Now, I'm not an electrochemist, but I had no trouble discovering this
information online, nor in corroborating it from multiple sources.
yours,
Michael
--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
[email protected] | White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/wwap/
Howdy!
In article <[email protected]>,
Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 11:59:41 GMT, Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, David <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Seems over the top and awfully pretentious. What procedure for TRYING
>>>to save a bad battery pack warrants a patent? When I've had bad battery
>>>packs, I've found dead cells. There's no hocus pocus that's gonna bring
>>>those dead cells back to life.
>>
>> Google on "revive NiCad battery" and you'll discover that (apparently) there
>> *is* such hocus pocus.
>
>Well, when I worked in a biomedical engineering lab years ago, we had a
>battery rejuvinator for NiCd defib batteries. It'd do a milliamp-hour
>check first, then do it's cycle pattern, and then do another analysis
>afterwards. Some batteries got drastically better, some stayed bad.
>So, from this, I deduce that memory effect _is_ real in NiCd, and given
>the proper equipment and/or technique, you _can_ get some of them back.
If you've gotten grain growth in the Cadmium plate, it may be possible
to run the battery down and recharge it at the optimal rate to reform
the crystal structure. If you've gotten dendrite growth, you can fry
the dendrites that are shorting the battery (zap!), but there is a high
liklihood that the problem will recur.
In addition, there are other ways to damage batteries so that they don't
produce the expected level of output that are permanent. The rejuvenator
you describe sounds like something sophisticated that will actually do
the job when it can be done. Randomly trying to run the battery completely
down (as some might try) is a crap shoot.
The response from the seller sounds a lot like he is trying to sell you
dehydrated water.
yours,
Michael
--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
[email protected] | White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/wwap/
Howdy!
In article <[email protected]>,
Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 16:23:13 -0000, Michael Houghton <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Howdy!
>>
[snip a whole bunch of stuff where we are in fair agreement or better]
>> Did you actually follow up on my "Do A Google Search" to see what I was
>> looking at?
>
>Well, without knowing which search terms you used, it's hard to know.
>But, yes, I'm familiar with the chemistry and terminology involved, as
>well as the various failure modes.
My bad. I DAGS for "nicad memory effect", and the first two hits were
productive, one being the sci.electronics FAQ.
>
>> Now, I'm not an electrochemist, but I had no trouble discovering this
>> information online, nor in corroborating it from multiple sources.
>
>Well, put it this way...we used to use a charge/discharge cycle device
>to increase the capacity of NiCd battery packs. The diminished capacity
>appeared similar to the memory effect, and the improved capacity
>afterwards appeared similar to a memory effect being mitigated. The
>effect may have been something not technically "memory", but the
>usability of the battery was effectively the same as if it was.
>
OK. That makes sense. I'm just twitching at the misuse (widespread) of
the term "memory effect" as it applies to NiCd batteries, since it
also serves to gloss over mistreatment effects by the end user.
yours,
Michael
--
Michael and MJ Houghton | Herveus d'Ormonde and Megan O'Donnelly
[email protected] | White Wolf and the Phoenix
Bowie, MD, USA | Tablet and Inkle bands, and other stuff
| http://www.radix.net/~herveus/wwap/
In article <[email protected]>,
Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 19:20:17 +0100, No Spam <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hax Planx <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I once picked up a hitchhiker who claimed he knew of a guy who bought a
>>>prototype Chrysler that got 80mpg.
>>
>> Well seeing as there are many road vehicles in Europe that routinely
>> hit that figure its not surprising, as to whether a Chrysler could do
>> it I have my doubts. Other vehicles in the Daimler Chrysler group
>> could though.
>
>Can you provide examples of 80mpg production vehicles please?
Schwinn, Raleigh, Murray, Titan, To name just a few manufacturers. <grin>
Vespa used to have some scooters that were in that neighborhood. I'm not
familiar with current offerings.
The French-manufactured 2CV typically got 50mpg on a _bad_ day.
80mpg is _not_ unrealistic. With one of my old cars, I routinely got
in excess of 20mpg at highway speeds. NOT impressive in and of itself,
but that was with a car weighing roughly 7300 lbs, and powered with a
7.8L engine. Automatic transmission; _with_ the air-conditioning on.
Scaled down by a factor of 4 -- you're talking about something in the
1500 lb range, with a circa 1.6L engine (assuming you drop the a/c).
Its probably only going to have 2-place seating -- a 'roadster' type,
or maybe a Morris 'mini'.
In article <[email protected]>,
Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 03:12:30 -0000, Robert Bonomi
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 19:20:17 +0100, No Spam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Hax Planx <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I once picked up a hitchhiker who claimed he knew of a guy who bought a
>>>>>prototype Chrysler that got 80mpg.
>>>>
>>>> Well seeing as there are many road vehicles in Europe that routinely
>>>> hit that figure its not surprising,
>
>>>Can you provide examples of 80mpg production vehicles please?
>
>> Schwinn, Raleigh, Murray, Titan, To name just a few manufacturers. <grin>
>
>Heh. Good point, but I get the feeling the guy was talking about cars.
>He went from "many" to one model that isn't produced, pretty quickly.
Lots of little motor-bikes and scooters over there -- a fair number of
which get mileage numbers in that range. Top speeds of 65 km/h, or less,
(sometimes significantly less) though. Supurbly suited for 'in-town'
errands and such, much less so for inter-city travel.
>> The French-manufactured 2CV typically got 50mpg on a _bad_ day.
>
>Yeah, but I'm, er, pretty sure it wouldn't pass USA'n crash tests. What
>with the seats being basically lawn chairs and all, for starters.
I know of at least 2 that are operating in the U.S. licensed, 'street
legal'.
>> 80mpg is _not_ unrealistic. With one of my old cars, I routinely got
>> in excess of 20mpg at highway speeds. NOT impressive in and of itself,
>> but that was with a car weighing roughly 7300 lbs, and powered with a
>> 7.8L engine. Automatic transmission; _with_ the air-conditioning on.
>
>> Scaled down by a factor of 4 -- you're talking about something in the
>> 1500 lb range, with a circa 1.6L engine (assuming you drop the a/c).
>
>Well, if it was linear, sure. But, aerodynamics play a bigger part than
>you'd think at higher speeds. A late 60's/early 70's Saab 96 weighs
>something like 1900 pounds, has a 1.7 liter engine, and gets 25MPG.
Yeah, you have to reduce the frontal cross-section, and thus aero drag,
proportionally, as well. Which is why I continued ....
I'm underwhelmed with those Saab figures -- in that same time-frame, got
23MPG in-town, with a 3200lb Dodge, with a 4.6L V-8 engine in it.
In the late 80s a friend was getting 43-44 mpg on the highway, with a
Nissan Sentra, with a 2.8L (I believe, might have been a 2.2) engine.
With the a/c running. More like 50mpg without the a/c.
>
>> Its probably only going to have 2-place seating -- a 'roadster' type,
>> or maybe a Morris 'mini'.
>
>Or, something lightened so far that it's unsafe. I'd rather spend a bit
>more on fuel and live. Make it biofuel so we can make it here, rather
>than giving money to people who hate us, and we're getting somewhere.
Have you ever run the numbers on how much biodiesel one can produce from
an acre of farmland in a year?
In article <[email protected]>,
Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote:
>Robert Bonomi wrote:
>...
>
>> Have you ever run the numbers on how much biodiesel one can produce from
>> an acre of farmland in a year?
>
>Ethanol is better deal to date, but biodiesel is coming on...net
>positive energy ratios are improving every year w/ better hybrids and
>improved processes...neither will ever be 100%, but are both net
>positives.
Which relates to the question I posed, how?
How many acres of farmland does it take to produce say, 1,000 barrels of
either ethanol or biodiesel?
I'm not arguing about the efficiency of the conversion from 'raw' biomass to
'useable' fuel, Rather, I'm commenting on the ability, or lack thereof, to
supplant any significant amount of petroleum imports.
In article <[email protected]>,
Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
>Somebody wrote:
>
>>Have you ever run the numbers on how much biodiesel one can produce from
>>an acre of farmland in a year?
>
>Why waste time with farmland when you have all the used oil drom those
>deep well fryers at the fat farms of the country such as McDonalds,
>Burger King, etc, available?
I dunno. maybe because the oil in those fryers -- at maybe 5-10 gallons
per site -- typically gets changed far less often than once a week.
Assuming there's 1 such fryer for every 10 people -- I have no real idea,
but I suspect its more like 1 per several hundred, if not thousand -- that
source will produce an average of 1 gallon/week per person. This isn't
exactly a significant dent in usage.
In article <[email protected]>,
Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote:
>Robert Bonomi wrote:
>>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >Robert Bonomi wrote:
>> >...
>> >
>> >> Have you ever run the numbers on how much biodiesel one can produce from
>> >> an acre of farmland in a year?
>> >
>> >Ethanol is better deal to date, but biodiesel is coming on...net
>> >positive energy ratios are improving every year w/ better hybrids and
>> >improved processes...neither will ever be 100%, but are both net
>> >positives.
>>
>> Which relates to the question I posed, how?
>>
>> How many acres of farmland does it take to produce say, 1,000 barrels of
>> either ethanol or biodiesel?
>>
>> I'm not arguing about the efficiency of the conversion from 'raw' biomass to
>> 'useable' fuel, Rather, I'm commenting on the ability, or lack thereof, to
>> supplant any significant amount of petroleum imports.
>
>OK, I did find a reference...for ethanol, 2.65 gal(anhydrous)/bu corn.
>At 200 bu/A (easy) that's 530 gal/A ==> ~17 bbl/A. So a 1000 bbl ==> 60
>A.
Except those numbers don't add up.
200 bu/a is *really* optimistic. 140-160 is more the 'typical' range for
serious corn growing states -- e.g. Iowa, Nebr, Missouri, etc.
non-corn-belt states will be significantly lower yields. USDA figures
for the 2001 crop put the nation-wide yield at 131+ bu/acre -- the _third_
_highest_ number on record.
And a bbl of oil is 42 gallons.
Combined, you get a more realistic number of 9.46 bbl/acre.
Now, here's what I was leading up to ---
A car, driven 15,000 miles/year, and getting 25mpg, will need 14.285 bbl
of fuel/year. That's the output from 1.5 acres.
The entire corn crop for the state of Iowa, last year, was 1.2 million acres.
100% conversion to fuel, would be about 800,000 cars worth. Somewhat over
_half_ the cars registered in the state. Not counting any bus/truck/etc.
demand.
Automobile usage is a small part of total fuel consumption. like 1/5 or less.
of vehicular use. well under 10% of all petroleum consumption, when you
include oil-fired heating, farm implement, and marine use.
Iowa's _entire_ corn crop, used for fuel, might make a 2-3% reduction in
petroleum fuel usage in Iowa. With a realistic level of diversion to fuel,
you might get a 0.5% reduction _in_Iowa_. On a national basis, probably
an order of magnitude (at least) lower.
In article <[email protected]>,
Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote:
>Morris Dovey wrote:
>....
>> We can expect that as the cost of fuel rises, more and more land will
>> be given over to ethanol production - and other crops will be
>> sacrificed until a (shifting) economic balance is achieved. Soybean
>> derivatives (everything from livestock feed to plastics) will become
>> sharply more expensive.
>
>> If the pressures to maximize ethanol production are sufficiently high,
>> we face the danger of taking a giant step backward to repetitively
>> planting the same crop on the same land until the soil is exhausted.
>> Should we get to that point, there will be serious breakage - and the
>> worst of it won't be in the corn belt.
>
>I think you overestimate this scenario extensively...for one thing, at
>present there are millions of acres of formerly-producing crop ground in
>the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) that could, <IF> (that's the "big
>if" :) ) it were necessary and economical, be brought back into
>production for many of these ancillary crops as well as corn and
>concerned w/ maintaining productivity of the land, it is we
>soybeans.
Pulling land out of CRP is a *short*term* only 'fix'. *SMART* farm
production involves carefully designed rotation of crops planted on a
given plot *AND* the cycling of that land _out_of_production_use_ as a
regular element in that rotation. *MOST* CRP acres are land that would
be 'idled' even if CRP didn't exist.
You get more acres in production, *BUT*, over time (meaning 5 years, or
*less*), due to degraded land quality from continuous use, yield/acre goes
_down_. The effective increase in production is nowhere close to the
increased acreage.
In article <[email protected]>, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 13:31:40 GMT, Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, Juergen Hannappel
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>To answer you last question: Yes...
>>>The economy needs a restructuring so that it provides work and supply
>>>for all *without economic growth*, otherwise there will be no future
>>>worth living in.
>
>> In order for that to work, there must also be no population growth. How do
> you
>> propose to achieve *that*?
>
>Well, last time a German fellow proposed that sort of thing, it didn't
>go well...
>
And I see no grounds for supposing that it would do any better in reruns.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:%Tyue.2304$Z97.520@trndny06:
> Hey, it works, When I added the water injector from JC Whitney, my
> mileage went up to 70 mpg. They I added that fan thingies under the
> carb, plus a special ingredient in the gas tank and I'm getting 82 mpg
> on a regular basis. I can't wait for the Fire Ring spark plugs to get
> here. My goal is to top 100 mpg.
What about that magnet thingy that "aligns" the gasoline molecules for more
MPG!?!?!
Oh oh... Here come the black helicopters...
In article <[email protected]>, David
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Seems over the top and awfully pretentious. What procedure for TRYING
> to save a bad battery pack warrants a patent?
The site says "patent pending"...
There is no patent.
--
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~
------------------------------------------------------
One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca>
The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com>
In article <%Tyue.2304$Z97.520@trndny06>, Edwin Pawlowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
> "Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > If it were true, don't you think the manufacturers would have figured out
> > how to do it and make money on the process? This smells like the infamous
> > Fish carburetor of long ago. You know, the one that got 50-60 mpg as a
> > bolt-on.
> > Bob
>
> Hey, it works, When I added the water injector from JC Whitney, my mileage
> went up to 70 mpg. They I added that fan thingies under the carb, plus a
> special ingredient in the gas tank and I'm getting 82 mpg on a regular
> basis. I can't wait for the Fire Ring spark plugs to get here. My goal is
> to top 100 mpg.
>
>
In the early 70's , I was more interested in HP
than MPG.
I stuck this "cool can" gizmo between the tank and
the carb of my Boss 302 (wish I had that today). It
was sort of like a mini "still" with an aluminum
tube coiled around the inside of an insulated can -
maybe 10 inch diameter. The idea was that you fill the
can with ice, or better dry ice, and then run your honey
at the local strip. It was to increase the density of the
gas. You know, more cc's passing through the pump
at any given moment.
Don't think that it did anthing, but it sure looked
"cool" when when it was smokin' from the dry ice when
I popped the hood.
Lou
In article <[email protected]>, Robert Bonomi
<[email protected]> wrote:
> How many acres of farmland does it take to produce say, 1,000 barrels of
> either ethanol or biodiesel?
That's a good question, and I've throw it to at one of our senior
reporters at work (farm newspaper) to see if they know the answer.
> I'm not arguing about the efficiency of the conversion from 'raw' biomass to
> 'useable' fuel, Rather, I'm commenting on the ability, or lack thereof, to
> supplant any significant amount of petroleum imports.
We ran a story a couple of weeks ago about a research pproject that was
close to producing bio-diesel from the animal parts that can no longer
be rendered due to the BSE scare and the closure of the US border to
our cattle. Interesting stuff. There may be more sources for bio-fuels
that simply growing plant matter and converting/digesting it.
--
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~
------------------------------------------------------
One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca>
The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com>
In article <[email protected]>, George <[email protected]>
wrote:
> In northern climes there often isn't enough useful rotting time for low or
> no till to be effective. Depending on the next crop, it is often best to
> turn it under.
Zero-till is quite common, and becoming more so, north of the 49th,
actually.
--
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~
------------------------------------------------------
One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca>
The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com>
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 12:35:40 GMT, Gene T <[email protected]> wrote:
> Has anyone been brave enough to pay for info on how to "revive" cordless
> toll batteries that no longer hold a charge?
> This guy is selling this "info" On Ebay for $12.95 and has a 99.7% feedback.
> Can this be true?
There are ways to regenerate NiCd batteries, yes. Some are temporary,
some are less temporary. If you have a Batteries Plus store near you,
they'll take a battery pack in, see if the techniques work on it, and if
they do, they'll charge you for the "revive". If it doesn't work, then
you can buy new batteries from them.
Their advice and findings can, I think, be trusted either way, because
either way they get profit out of the transaction, and I've always been
doen well by them. I'd give the guy on eBay a miss; you can probably
find dodgy advice on how to renew NiCd batteries on google, and it's
probably just as valid.
See if your local battery house has a service like this. I just noticed
last night that one of my Makita 18V paks needs this, and it's in the
car today for that reason.
Dave Hinz
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 10:51:02 -0500, Puff Griffis <[email protected]> wrote:
> My Batteries Plus store will not touch battery packs from cordless power tools. At least that's what the fellow told me in November last year.
Hm. I've used ours several times for this service. They have a tech on
duty (with a glass wall so you can watch him work - I'd _HATE_ that if
it was me) with all the toys. They'll put new individual cells into
devices that don't have seperate packs, and all that. I suppose they're
franchises so they may vary?
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 16:21:02 -0000, Michael Houghton <[email protected]> wrote:
> The "memory" effect is overblown, being difficult to actually demonstrate.
> DAGS for nicad memory effect...
Come on over, I'll show you a real example. People have been saying for
decades that it doesn't exist, and people have continued to experience
it during all that time. A NiCd battery rejuvination produces
measurable real results; if that's not from memory effect, what do you
think it's from?
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 17:24:38 -0700, AAvK <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ----
> His answer:
>
> I am the president of Unique Dynamics, Inc. that has copyright and patent
> rights to the process. The best way to determine if the process is worth the
> money is to read the ebay feedback and the testimonials.
For the record, neither the copyright or the patent office verifies that
something works, just that it's unique enough. I have no information or
comment on whatever this process is, but I want to point out that that
doesn't mean it's been validated by those offices.
Me, I'll stick with Batteries Plus.
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 00:48:03 GMT, CW <[email protected]> wrote:
> The carborator was real and did work. The rumor mill distorted the claims.
> It did do what it was claimed by the the manufacturer to do.
Please provide a credible cite for this. We'll get into the chemical
limitations once you do that. "I heard a guy say a friend of a friend
said" isn't a cite, by the way.
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 04:24:55 GMT, CW <[email protected]> wrote:
> I was quite ready to discuss the myths and realities of this (the realities
> you are obviously unaware of) but you immidiatly took your prick stance. In
> that case, go fuck yourself.
In other words, just like everyone else claiming to "know about it",
you've got nuthin. Thanks for verifying. By the way, when you top-post
your responses, you screw up the flow of the conversation.
Despite what you've heard, there is only so much hydrocarbon in a gallon
of gasoline, so much energy you can get from oxidizing that hydrocarbon,
and no amount of urban legend is going to change that.
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 11:59:41 GMT, Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, David <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Seems over the top and awfully pretentious. What procedure for TRYING
>>to save a bad battery pack warrants a patent? When I've had bad battery
>>packs, I've found dead cells. There's no hocus pocus that's gonna bring
>>those dead cells back to life.
>
> Google on "revive NiCad battery" and you'll discover that (apparently) there
> *is* such hocus pocus.
Well, when I worked in a biomedical engineering lab years ago, we had a
battery rejuvinator for NiCd defib batteries. It'd do a milliamp-hour
check first, then do it's cycle pattern, and then do another analysis
afterwards. Some batteries got drastically better, some stayed bad.
So, from this, I deduce that memory effect _is_ real in NiCd, and given
the proper equipment and/or technique, you _can_ get some of them back.
> "Hello! Yes, it works well-but not on all batteries. Firstly, you need to be
> able to access the individual cells. Using a 10-12 volt source battery(9 is
> too weak I've found) you "zap" each dead cell-most are revived and can then be
> charged.
Right, that technique has been around forever. I can see how he claims
copyright for his procedure document, but the fact that he claims to
hold patent in the auction, yet his site says "patent pending", shows
that something is fishy. The medical-grade battery rejuvinators use a
charge/discharge cycle pattern rather than a capacitive discharge into
the battery, by the way. Physio-Control was/is the manufacturer, if
you're interested in googling for details.
> He also has a new "quick" method that is easier but
> doesn't always work. Easily worth the $13 for one battery if you ask me. "
Maybe, but probably the same "discharge a cap into it and hope for the
best" that you'll find for free with any search engine.
Dave Hinz
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 16:23:13 -0000, Michael Houghton <[email protected]> wrote:
> Howdy!
>
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Come on over, I'll show you a real example. People have been saying for
>>decades that it doesn't exist, and people have continued to experience
>>it during all that time. A NiCd battery rejuvination produces
>>measurable real results; if that's not from memory effect, what do you
>>think it's from?
>>
> Rechargable batteries deteroriate in a variety of ways. Just because your
> NiCad battery isn't putting out what you expect doesn't mean you are
> suffering from the memory effect. Overcharging can do damage that results
> in lower capacity.
True. But, if Makita's product literature is to be believed, their
chargers are well-behaved in this regard.
> The "memory effect" is specifically the result of repeatedly going through
> a discharge/charge cycle that is (effectively) always a fixed percentage
> of the battery's capacity. Consumer use of NiCad batteries is vanishingly
> likely (read not hardly at all) to meet this strict requirement.
Could be.
> Now, "rejuvenitation" may well be able to repair some of these forms of
> damage, but that doesn't mean that "memory" is involved.
Fair enough.
> Did you actually follow up on my "Do A Google Search" to see what I was
> looking at?
Well, without knowing which search terms you used, it's hard to know.
But, yes, I'm familiar with the chemistry and terminology involved, as
well as the various failure modes.
> Now, I'm not an electrochemist, but I had no trouble discovering this
> information online, nor in corroborating it from multiple sources.
Well, put it this way...we used to use a charge/discharge cycle device
to increase the capacity of NiCd battery packs. The diminished capacity
appeared similar to the memory effect, and the improved capacity
afterwards appeared similar to a memory effect being mitigated. The
effect may have been something not technically "memory", but the
usability of the battery was effectively the same as if it was.
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 17:04:29 -0000, Michael Houghton <[email protected]> wrote:
> Howdy!
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 16:23:13 -0000, Michael Houghton <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Howdy!
>>>
> [snip a whole bunch of stuff where we are in fair agreement or better]
Oh now, where's the fun in that?
>>> Did you actually follow up on my "Do A Google Search" to see what I was
>>> looking at?
>>
>>Well, without knowing which search terms you used, it's hard to know.
>>But, yes, I'm familiar with the chemistry and terminology involved, as
>>well as the various failure modes.
> My bad. I DAGS for "nicad memory effect", and the first two hits were
> productive, one being the sci.electronics FAQ.
Cool, I'll check that out.
>>> Now, I'm not an electrochemist, but I had no trouble discovering this
>>> information online, nor in corroborating it from multiple sources.
>>Well, put it this way...we used to use a charge/discharge cycle device
>>to increase the capacity of NiCd battery packs. The diminished capacity
>>appeared similar to the memory effect, and the improved capacity
>>afterwards appeared similar to a memory effect being mitigated. The
>>effect may have been something not technically "memory", but the
>>usability of the battery was effectively the same as if it was.
> OK. That makes sense. I'm just twitching at the misuse (widespread) of
> the term "memory effect" as it applies to NiCd batteries, since it
> also serves to gloss over mistreatment effects by the end user.
Well, in the case of these defib batteries, it was mistreatment that
caused it, but that's the nature of a defib. They sit for long periods
of time, interrupted by very occasional intense discharge cycles -
usually for the monthly or weekly calibration and recharge time checks.
A defib probably gets discharged in testing 100 times for every time it
gets used on a patient. So, the batteries sit at full charge, with the
charger on 'em, nearly all the time. But, the need to have it usable
outweighs the cost of the deterioration of the battery packs. Medical
devices are a strange world, where "do something that'll hurt the
batteries in the long run, but test it and get rid of them before 'the
long run'" makes some sort of sense.
But, as far as language and terminology, if it acts like "memory", and
smells like "memory", and gets fixed the same way one fixes "memory",
then it's memory-enough-ish for me.
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 17:32:01 GMT, CW <[email protected]> wrote:
> You want something in print, you'll have to dig it up yourself. About a year
> ago, there was an interview, on a radio talk show, with the maker of the
> carburetor that had so much BS behind it. It was not represented as a "100
> hundred mile per gallon" conversion. It wouldn't really improve anything on
> a standard passenger car. It was intended for the RV market, where engines
> were under a heavy load. The difference was the spraybar. It forced
> atomization instead of relying on airflow as in a regular carb.
Yes, that's what fuel injection does - improves atomization. Changes
the surface area:mass ratio of the fuel. If you have unburned
hydrocarbons, that would show up in the emissions. It doesn't,
therefore there aren't massive quantities of unburned hydrocarbons with
which to improve your mileage.
This
> improved combustion efficiency. The improvement was not earth shattering but
> was there. The host of the show had heard all of these wild claims that were
> going around and, wanting to get the real story, tracked this guy down. The
> conspiracy theorists said that the oil companies bought this guy out, had
> him killed, ect. Not at all true. The reason that he ceased production was
> due to the advent of fuel injection. It was more efficient than any
> carburetor.
Right. So what's your point then? 80MPG never happened in anything
resembling a production vehicle.
By the way "I heard an interview on the radio" also isn't what's known
as a "cite".
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 19:20:17 +0100, No Spam <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hax Planx <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>I once picked up a hitchhiker who claimed he knew of a guy who bought a
>>prototype Chrysler that got 80mpg.
>
> Well seeing as there are many road vehicles in Europe that routinely
> hit that figure its not surprising, as to whether a Chrysler could do
> it I have my doubts. Other vehicles in the Daimler Chrysler group
> could though.
Can you provide examples of 80mpg production vehicles please?
> Just to prove what can be done the world record for a vehicle capable
> of carrying a human is currently 10703 - yes you read that right, ten
> thousand, ten followed by four zeros, miles per gallon.
And is that vehicle roadworthy?
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 20:44:53 +0200, Juergen Hannappel <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
> [...]
>
>> Can you provide examples of 80mpg production vehicles please?
>
> VW Lupo 3L TDI, sadly now out of production because it was too
> expensive for so small a car
OK, next?
>>> Just to prove what can be done the world record for a vehicle capable
>>> of carrying a human is currently 10703 - yes you read that right, ten
>>> thousand, ten followed by four zeros, miles per gallon.
>>
>> And is that vehicle roadworthy?
> No...
OK, next?
Of course one-off prototypes of unworkable or unmarketable cars can be
made for nearly any purpose. Rocket cars go really really really fast,
but they're not roadworthy or marketable either.
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 03:12:30 -0000, Robert Bonomi <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 19:20:17 +0100, No Spam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Hax Planx <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I once picked up a hitchhiker who claimed he knew of a guy who bought a
>>>>prototype Chrysler that got 80mpg.
>>>
>>> Well seeing as there are many road vehicles in Europe that routinely
>>> hit that figure its not surprising,
>>Can you provide examples of 80mpg production vehicles please?
> Schwinn, Raleigh, Murray, Titan, To name just a few manufacturers. <grin>
Heh. Good point, but I get the feeling the guy was talking about cars.
He went from "many" to one model that isn't produced, pretty quickly.
> The French-manufactured 2CV typically got 50mpg on a _bad_ day.
Yeah, but I'm, er, pretty sure it wouldn't pass USA'n crash tests. What
with the seats being basically lawn chairs and all, for starters.
> 80mpg is _not_ unrealistic. With one of my old cars, I routinely got
> in excess of 20mpg at highway speeds. NOT impressive in and of itself,
> but that was with a car weighing roughly 7300 lbs, and powered with a
> 7.8L engine. Automatic transmission; _with_ the air-conditioning on.
> Scaled down by a factor of 4 -- you're talking about something in the
> 1500 lb range, with a circa 1.6L engine (assuming you drop the a/c).
Well, if it was linear, sure. But, aerodynamics play a bigger part than
you'd think at higher speeds. A late 60's/early 70's Saab 96 weighs
something like 1900 pounds, has a 1.7 liter engine, and gets 25MPG.
> Its probably only going to have 2-place seating -- a 'roadster' type,
> or maybe a Morris 'mini'.
Or, something lightened so far that it's unsafe. I'd rather spend a bit
more on fuel and live. Make it biofuel so we can make it here, rather
than giving money to people who hate us, and we're getting somewhere.
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 21:40:30 +0100, No Spam <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>And is that vehicle roadworthy?
>
> In terms of absolute government published figures then the answer to
> the first point is yes, a few, (four) but this is due to a change five
> years ago in the way the tests are performed. Government published
> steady state 56mph tests were routinely in the 50-60mpg bracket 25
> years ago.
Will that vehicle pass present crash tests, and can I drive it to work
as a normal car? (no to at least one, and I suspect both).
> Real world magazine published road tests show that 80mpg + is
> achievable across a whole raft of vehicles. Just last year a team of
> journalists drove around 800 miles from the top end of the UK to the
> bottom and got more than 100 mpg (in a VW)
How fast were they driving? Again, experimental one-off "but nobody
would ever use a car that only goes 3MPH" cars are interesting but not
relevant here.
> Union Type Approval Tests, achieved more than 70mpg on the extra-urban
> cycle - this being carried out in controlled laboratory conditions on
> an vehicle that has previously run for around 2.5 miles from a cold
> start.
Great, that gets me 1/20th of the way to work.
> It consists of roughly half steady-speed driving and the remainder
> accelerations, decelerations, and some idling. Maximum speed is 75 mph
> average speed is 39 mph and the distance covered is 4.3 miles.
> In case you have doubts over the size of the vehicles achieving these
> figures, some of them are two seaters, some are four, some are capable
> of carrying five median sized Americans with enough space left over
> for a week of non stop food ;-)
Safely?
> Emissions? Well in general they all meet the latest emissions
> requirements for Europe (EU4) which is a similar level to that
> required in the US and Japan.
> As for the second point, No, but did you expect it to be.?
Well, if it's going to be relevant when we're talking about a
transportation device, yeah, it's kind of important.
> VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 80.7
> VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 80.7
> CITROEN C1 1398 D 83.1
> HONDA Insight 995 P/ E 94.2
Would any of those pass USA'n crash tests?
On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 16:11:14 GMT, CW <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> When the show was an interview with the inventor of the thing (yes, he was
> there in the studio), it has a lot to do with it.
Lots of people lie about what they've made. Nothing new there.
> I'm sure you would rather
> the government spend a few million dollars on research and publish a report
> for you to read but I doubt that's going to happen.
I notice you ignored my point about hydrocarbons, and how if there were
unburned ones left by the normal carb, that they'd show up in the
exhaust. Why, oh why, might that be, I wonder?
> Now, go make a pointy
> stick and fall on it.
You should talk to somebody about your hostility problems.
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 21:43:04 -0000, Robert Bonomi <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Heh. Good point, but I get the feeling the guy was talking about cars.
>>He went from "many" to one model that isn't produced, pretty quickly.
>
> Lots of little motor-bikes and scooters over there -- a fair number of
> which get mileage numbers in that range. Top speeds of 65 km/h, or less,
> (sometimes significantly less) though. Supurbly suited for 'in-town'
> errands and such, much less so for inter-city travel.
Wouldn't do for me for my 90+ miles per day commute, I'm afraid.
That and the whole "idiots not seeing bikes" problem.
>>Well, if it was linear, sure. But, aerodynamics play a bigger part than
>>you'd think at higher speeds. A late 60's/early 70's Saab 96 weighs
>>something like 1900 pounds, has a 1.7 liter engine, and gets 25MPG.
>
> Yeah, you have to reduce the frontal cross-section, and thus aero drag,
> proportionally, as well. Which is why I continued ....
>
> I'm underwhelmed with those Saab figures -- in that same time-frame, got
> 23MPG in-town, with a 3200lb Dodge, with a 4.6L V-8 engine in it.
Well, it was just an example of "car of that weight and displacement not
getting 80" I guess was my point. Saab has always been very good about
aerodynamics; I think the drag coefficient of the Saab 96 is 0.39 or so,
which for a 1960 design is pretty low.
>>Or, something lightened so far that it's unsafe. I'd rather spend a bit
>>more on fuel and live. Make it biofuel so we can make it here, rather
>>than giving money to people who hate us, and we're getting somewhere.
>
> Have you ever run the numbers on how much biodiesel one can produce from
> an acre of farmland in a year?
No, I haven't, but I know there's an awful lot of farmland in CRP (or
whatever it's called this decade), which could be growing corn for
alcohol or soybeans for biodiesel/cattle feed if it paid well enough.
I'd rather see the gummint subsidize something like that than some of
the other (ahem) stupid stuff it's spending our money on.
Dave Hinz
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 02:11:38 GMT, Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
> Somebody wrote:
>
>>Have you ever run the numbers on how much biodiesel one can produce from
>>an acre of farmland in a year?
>
> Why waste time with farmland when you have all the used oil drom those
> deep well fryers at the fat farms of the country such as McDonalds,
> Burger King, etc, available?
That's fine for one person, or a small group, but the volume isn't close
to what's needed to make it into an infrastructure process.
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 07:40:20 -0500, Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think you overestimate this scenario extensively...for one thing, at
> present there are millions of acres of formerly-producing crop ground in
> the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) that could, <IF> (that's the "big
> if" :) ) it were necessary and economical, be brought back into
> production for many of these ancillary crops as well as corn and
> soybeans.
Right. I've got 17 acres of it myself. If I could make much more with
soybeans, I'd consider it, but right now it's just as profitable, and
much less work, to let it sit.
> As for land "exhaustion", if there is any segment that is
> concerned w/ maintaining productivity of the land, it is we
> producers--after all, that is our <direct> livelihood, not indirect.
Yes. The days of people being ignorant of crop rotation and soil
quality are long gone. Some may choose not to do any of it, but they're
at lesat not ignorant of it.
At 60 bucks an acre per year for CRP contracts, I can't see planting
soybeans any time soon. If fuel goes waaaaaaaaaay up, then maybe.
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 13:31:40 GMT, Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Juergen Hannappel <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>To answer you last question: Yes...
>>The economy needs a restructuring so that it provides work and supply
>>for all *without economic growth*, otherwise there will be no future
>>worth living in.
> In order for that to work, there must also be no population growth. How do you
> propose to achieve *that*?
Well, last time a German fellow proposed that sort of thing, it didn't
go well...
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 15:01:27 -0500, Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 07:40:20 -0500, Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...
>>
>> Right. I've got 17 acres of it myself.
>
> Well, as I suspected, your experience "back there" :) is in the buffer
> or wetland programs...
Right, I only have 30 acres total. So, I'm happy leaving it in the long
term crop it's growing now (trees). 8000 planted, plus a few thousand
volunteers (mostly ash...nice lumber,that) is enough to keep me busy
between keeping the listed weeds down, and keeping the lumber shaped
properly.
>> Yes. The days of people being ignorant of crop rotation and soil
>> quality are long gone. Some may choose not to do any of it, but they're
>> at lesat not ignorant of it.
> I know none that are real production farmers that aren't both aware and
> serious practicioners--it is simply not possible to survive economically
> otherwise. All those who used to operate that way are long gone, at
> least around here.
In my part of Wisconsin, no-till is just getting to be common in the
family farm setting. So things move slow. Like I said, it's not that
they're ignorant of it, they're just chosing not to use it in some
cases.
>> At 60 bucks an acre per year for CRP contracts, I can't see planting
>> soybeans any time soon. If fuel goes waaaaaaaaaay up, then maybe.
> At 38-40/A, I didn't either. At 28-32/A it starts looking different.
Is that what it's down to now? My contract is good for a few more
years, I didn't know it was that low.
> We got
> an infestation of sericea lespedeza from the forb seed they required us
> to overseed into it for improved wildlife habitat. Now that has been
> placed on the noxious weed list and it is incredibly difficult to
> eradicate and at $80/gal (including the County Noxious Office kickback),
Nice going to whichever idiot told you to plant it then, eh? I bet he's
not real popular...
> it costs $20/A just for the chemical, w/o application cost. It just
> really chaps me that they <made> us plant the damn weeds in the grass in
> the first place (which incidentally cost us half that cost out of pocket
> besides), introducing the stuff in the first place, and now the entire
> control cost comes out of our pocket on top of which the new leases are
> for 20% or more less than the initial. If that occurs again, it's
> almost a given it will <not> be renewed. It may stay in grass, but it at
> least will be able to be hayed and grazed even if it doesn't go back
> into grain production.
I'm almost to the point where the trees make changing my mind a
non-option. I've got (thinks....) maybe 5-6 acres in native
wildflowers, the university sent out a couple of people to do a site
survey and plan & got us started. Looks nice, keeps the weeds out.
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 16:56:36 -0500, Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz wrote:
>> Right, I only have 30 acres total. So, I'm happy leaving it in the long
>> term crop it's growing now (trees).
> 30 acres here is just <almost> enough to turn the combine around in...
>:)
I understand, believe me. Not many people out here have a full quarter,
though. Lots of family farms, lots of custom farmers working other
folks' land.
>> In my part of Wisconsin, no-till is just getting to be common in the
>> family farm setting. So things move slow. Like I said, it's not that
>> they're ignorant of it, they're just chosing not to use it in some
>> cases.
> Not everyone is in full no-till here, either, of course. But there's
> nobody still turning enverything over w/ a oneway plow four times a year
> like was done in the 50s, either. Anyone farming here is using modern
> practices or thy're not surviving--fact of life w/ <$3 wheat and >$1.50
> ag diesel...
It's very spotty, and surprising which people are doing new stuff and
which aren't. Again, the custom for-hire guys seem to do the tech more
so than the guy who's using his dad's stuff from the 1950's.
>> > At 38-40/A, I didn't either. At 28-32/A it starts looking different.
>>
>> Is that what it's down to now? My contract is good for a few more
>> years, I didn't know it was that low.
>
> Contract levels are based on conservation district and soil type, etc.
> Back there where it rains, :) conditions are grossly different than this
> dryland. But, for us, yes, that's what current are...what'll happen in
> 2007 is anybody's guess.
Well, I was thinking about this last night; the effort I've got in those
trees, combined with the fact that I've got to keep the weeds down
_anyway_, well, I think I'll renew at whatever price I can get - within
reason.
>> > We got
>> > an infestation of sericea lespedeza from the forb seed they required us
>> > to overseed into it for improved wildlife habitat. Now that has been
>> > placed on the noxious weed list and it is incredibly difficult to
>> > eradicate and at $80/gal (including the County Noxious Office kickback),
>>
>> Nice going to whichever idiot told you to plant it then, eh? I bet he's
>> not real popular...
>
> Was part of the last CRP practices to "enhance recreational use"...out
> here, of course, that means pheasant hunting, primarily. The forbs were
> required practice to add to the seed availability. The lespedeza was
> weed seed in the forbs, not an intended consequence.
Ah, got it. I thought that it was the species they wanted you to plant,
but I admit I didn't read it twice or anything.
> That I can live
> with--shxx happens. What PO's me is no help in fixing a problem not of
> our causing.
Me, I'd like them to help with the purple loostrife problem. Sure, I
can _buy_ the beetles to eat it, from the DNR, for LOTS of money, or I
should be able to call 'em up, tell 'em 'Hey, your 180 acres behind my
house has a problem, come fix it" and they should. But, they seem not
to. But, God Forbid if I have some of it on my land, or I get the
letter. AARGH.
>> I'm almost to the point where the trees make changing my mind a
>> non-option. I've got (thinks....) maybe 5-6 acres in native
>> wildflowers, the university sent out a couple of people to do a site
>> survey and plan & got us started. Looks nice, keeps the weeds out.
> Here, trees are a no-no...they're exotics. This is short grass prairie
> (although there was significant bluestem and other taller grasses.
> Coronado's journals talk of shoulder high in his wandering around.)
Well, the trees I've put in are Spruce, Pine, Fir, Oak (Red & white
around here), Walnut, Maple, and the Ash trees have just decided that
they like it here so there's many thousands of those. A few cherry
trees, but I'm not sure which variety. Looks like maybe chokecherry,
I'll know in a few years. Way I look at it, the lumber-worthy trees, I
trim up for straight trunks; the non-lumber trees I let be whatever
shape they want so they can do the whole "turn CO2 into Oxygen" thing.
At some point, the prairie will decide it's a forest, but I figure I'll
let the plants work that out amongst themselves. I mow a 4' path around
the wildflower areas to keep the weeds out; the wildflowers seem to be
expanding about a foot per year so I move the mowed path out that much.
Current project is picking rocks, and a closely coupled project of
building a rock wall. Want some rocks? My hill is a glacial deposit...
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 06:36:32 -0500, Prometheus <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 27 Jun 2005 15:25:25 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Well, if it's going to be relevant when we're talking about a
>>transportation device, yeah, it's kind of important.
>>
>>> VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 80.7
>>> VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 80.7
>>> CITROEN C1 1398 D 83.1
>>> HONDA Insight 995 P/ E 94.2
>>
>>Would any of those pass USA'n crash tests?
>
> FORD New Focus 1560 D 70.6
>
> I sure hope so, considering the Ford dealership just sold me one.
> Doesn't get 70 mpg, though. I've got 41 without A/C so far, though-
> that's with the manual transmission and approximately 20% stop-and-go
> city traffic. With the A/C on, it drops to about 32 mpg.
So, why does this table show 70.6 and you see 41? Even the empirical
vs. USA'n gallon size doesn't wash with the numbers.
>
>
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 07:01:32 -0400, George <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> In my part of Wisconsin, no-till is just getting to be common in the
>> family farm setting. So things move slow. Like I said, it's not that
>> they're ignorant of it, they're just chosing not to use it in some
>> cases.
> In northern climes there often isn't enough useful rotting time for low or
> no till to be effective. Depending on the next crop, it is often best to
> turn it under.
No-till around here usually involves round-up or similar. Same where
you are? I suppose it kills the old whatever, while giving it more time
to decompose while the next crop is growing.
On 30 Jun 2005 11:05:23 -0400, Roy Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> Edwin Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>> That's a big drop with AC. Both my cars have 3.8 liter engines and the
>> difference is no more than 1 mpg. Neither gets 42 mpg and struggle to get
>> 30 on all highway
>
> I believe most cars get better mileage on the highway with the AC
> turned on and the windows closed than with the AC off and the windows
> open. The added aerodynamic drag introduced by opening the windows is
> worse than turning the AC on.
Mythbusters just did this one, actually. Two identical vehicles, one
with AC on, the other with the windows open. It was a Ford Expedition,
which is hardly an example of an aerodynamic, efficient vehicle, but
they found that the one with the A/C ran out of gas first, by a few
percent. I don't have exact numbers, but google might.
This might be vastly different with a more aerodynamic vehicle, where
the aerodynamic change made by opening the windows takes it from "good"
to "bad", rather than from "bad" to "more bad".
Way I look at it, I'll run the A/C and be a bit more comfortable, either
way.
On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 09:32:01 -0400, George <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Prometheus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 30 Jun 2005 15:04:28 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >So, why does this table show 70.6 and you see 41? Even the empirical
>> >vs. USA'n gallon size doesn't wash with the numbers.
>>
>> That's a good question- the mfg sticker claims 35-51 hwy mpg. I have
>> no idea where the table came from in the first place. Could be they
>> used some kind of test that had nothing to do with real-world
>> conditions.
> 71 km = 44 miles Sorta makes you wonder?
Well spotted, George. Maybe the person who posted the table can provide
the link so we can read it for ourselves. Maybe it's being
misrepresented.
On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 18:50:43 GMT, Tim and Steph <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>Hey, it works, When I added the water injector from JC Whitney, my
>>>>mileage went up to 70 mpg. They I added that fan thingies under the
>>>>carb, plus a special ingredient in the gas tank and I'm getting 82 mpg
>>>>on a regular basis. I can't wait for the Fire Ring spark plugs to get
>>>>here. My goal is to top 100 mpg.
>
> Funny thing - Following a recent engine swap, I've suddenly got a wonky
> speedo, which is of course making the odometer less than reliable.
FWIW, if it's a mechanical speedo, you probably crimped the flexi-cable
a bit and got a kink in it. BTDT. It's a touchy little mechanism.
My Batteries Plus store will not touch battery packs from cordless power =
tools. At least that's what the fellow told me in November last year.
Puff
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message =
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 12:35:40 GMT, Gene T <[email protected]> =
wrote:
> > Has anyone been brave enough to pay for info on how to "revive" =
cordless=20
> > toll batteries that no longer hold a charge?
> > This guy is selling this "info" On Ebay for $12.95 and has a 99.7% =
feedback.=20
> > Can this be true?
>=20
> There are ways to regenerate NiCd batteries, yes. Some are temporary,
> some are less temporary. If you have a Batteries Plus store near you,
> they'll take a battery pack in, see if the techniques work on it, and =
if
> they do, they'll charge you for the "revive". If it doesn't work, =
then
> you can buy new batteries from them.
>=20
> Their advice and findings can, I think, be trusted either way, because
> either way they get profit out of the transaction, and I've always =
been
> doen well by them. I'd give the guy on eBay a miss; you can probably
> find dodgy advice on how to renew NiCd batteries on google, and it's
> probably just as valid.
>=20
> See if your local battery house has a service like this. I just =
noticed
> last night that one of my Makita 18V paks needs this, and it's in the
> car today for that reason.
>=20
> Dave Hinz
>
tom wrote:
>
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 10:51:02 -0500, Puff Griffis <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > My Batteries Plus store will not touch battery packs from cordless power tools. At least that's what the fellow told me in November last year. Could be the packs you brought in were not screwed together, rather a glued-up box? At least that was the kicker for my Batteries Plus store. Tom
Any competent rebuilder should have the ability to dissasemble virtually
any battery pack and rebuild it...there are at least two independent
ones in Wichita I've used. Everything from early-death drill packs to
antique HP calculators.
Bob Schmall wrote:
>
> Duane Bozarth wrote:
> > tom wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 10:51:02 -0500, Puff Griffis <[email protected]>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>My Batteries Plus store will not touch battery packs from cordless power tools. At least that's what the fellow told me in November last year. Could be the packs you brought in were not screwed together, rather a glued-up box? At least that was the kicker for my Batteries Plus store. Tom
> >
> >
> > Any competent rebuilder should have the ability to dissasemble virtually
> > any battery pack and rebuild it...there are at least two independent
> > ones in Wichita I've used. Everything from early-death drill packs to
> > antique HP calculators.
>
> Somehow I don't think this is what the OP had in mind. The eBay scam
> looks more like a magic pill than a competent rebuild.
True, I was just referring to the subthread complaint about a particular
shop somewhere that was unable (or at least unwilling) to tackle a
welded-plastic b-pack...
Robert Bonomi wrote:
...
> Have you ever run the numbers on how much biodiesel one can produce from
> an acre of farmland in a year?
Ethanol is better deal to date, but biodiesel is coming on...net
positive energy ratios are improving every year w/ better hybrids and
improved processes...neither will ever be 100%, but are both net
positives.
Mark & Juanita wrote:
<snip>
> My apologies, the vote for the siezure case was 5-4. In this case
>O'Connor actually voted in the dissent; the original story upon which I
>based my comment above had indicated she was one of the 5. (No, it was an
>AP posting shortly after the ruling, so don't go "right wing whacko media
>here"). That was obviously in error and has since been corrected as a
>Google search just indicated.
>
> My original rant was based upon that originally erroneous story and the
>fact that she has in the past sided with things such as upholding the
>reversal of first amendment rights in the campaign finance reform law
>decision. Given that occurence, I didn't question what I had originally
>read.
Ah. You'll probably be pleased to see this, then:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/publicinfo/press/pr_07-01-05.html
R,
Tom Q.
--
Remove bogusinfo to reply.
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Duane Bozarth wrote:
> > Robert Bonomi wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > > Have you ever run the numbers on how much biodiesel one can produce from
> > > an acre of farmland in a year?
> >
> > Ethanol is better deal to date...
>
> Made from corn? I have been wondering if it would not be better to
> use sorghum, which grows well over much of the same range as corn,
> for producing the sugar used to make ethanol.
Primarily corn, yes. Sorghum doesn't have nearly the sugar content of
corn and nowhere nor the yield/acre. Sorghum is essentially a corn
substitute where corn is not economical to grow--dryland regions or
where excessive fertilizer costs are limiting, for example.
Much production is from hybrids bred specifically for ethanol production
and more is going that way every year. I've not seen a specific
percentage recently.
Dave Balderstone wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>, Robert Bonomi
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > How many acres of farmland does it take to produce say, 1,000 barrels of
> > either ethanol or biodiesel?
>
> That's a good question, and I've throw it to at one of our senior
> reporters at work (farm newspaper) to see if they know the answer.
>
...
I've not seen it in those terms altho it can be derived...what's more
significant and what is the focus of all reports I've seen is the NEV
(net energy value)--how much energy is available after production
inputs, distribution, etc.
The production on a per bushel basis isn't so useful a measure so it
normally isn't the focus.
Last data I saw was roughly 1.33 for ethanol. I don't recall for
biodiesel, but it's >1. Both are improving w/ time, from both improved
processes and fuel stock enhancements. Reducing inputs w/ more
efficient cultivation practices, reduced water/chemical/fertilizer
inputs is also a factor.
Robert Bonomi wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Robert Bonomi wrote:
> >...
> >
> >> Have you ever run the numbers on how much biodiesel one can produce from
> >> an acre of farmland in a year?
> >
> >Ethanol is better deal to date, but biodiesel is coming on...net
> >positive energy ratios are improving every year w/ better hybrids and
> >improved processes...neither will ever be 100%, but are both net
> >positives.
>
> Which relates to the question I posed, how?
>
> How many acres of farmland does it take to produce say, 1,000 barrels of
> either ethanol or biodiesel?
>
> I'm not arguing about the efficiency of the conversion from 'raw' biomass to
> 'useable' fuel, Rather, I'm commenting on the ability, or lack thereof, to
> supplant any significant amount of petroleum imports.
OK, I did find a reference...for ethanol, 2.65 gal(anhydrous)/bu corn.
At 200 bu/A (easy) that's 530 gal/A ==> ~17 bbl/A. So a 1000 bbl ==> 60
A.
The 2.65 gal/bu came from
http://www.bbibiofuels.com/ethanolevolution/FuelEthanol-lr.pdf
Haven't found a number for biodiesel/gal soybeans for comparison yet...
Dave Balderstone wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>, Robert Bonomi
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > How many acres of farmland does it take to produce say, 1,000 barrels of
> > either ethanol or biodiesel?
>
> That's a good question, and I've throw it to at one of our senior
> reporters at work (farm newspaper) to see if they know the answer.
....
As a followup I sent a query to the National Biodiesel Board...here's
the response...
> Biodiesel has a positive energy balance when compared to petroleum diesel
> fuel. A life cycle study conducted by the Departments of Energy and
> Agriculture showed that for every unit of fossil energy needed to produce
> biodiesel you get 3.2 units of energy out. Biodiesel has one of the highest
> energy balances of any renewable fuel.
>
> Over the last five years average soybean yield in the US was 38.4 bushels
> per acre. Each bushel of soybeans produces approximately 1.44 gallons of
> biodiesel. Therefore, an acre of soybeans could yield just over 55 gallons
> of biodiesel.
Extrapolating on basis of 31.5 gal/bbl, that would convert to something
under 600 A/1000 bbl, higher than the estimate for ethanol from corn,
but still, there are millions of actres in production and additional
acres can easily be devoted if needed.
Robert Bonomi wrote:
>
...
> Iowa's _entire_ corn crop, used for fuel, might make a 2-3% reduction in
> petroleum fuel usage in Iowa. With a realistic level of diversion to fuel,
> you might get a 0.5% reduction _in_Iowa_. On a national basis, probably
> an order of magnitude (at least) lower.
It's not a panacea, no...never claimed it to be. It <is> a positice
impact, however, and has an added benefit of increased markets for ag
products...
There's 200-bu corn raised even here, though. :) Not that it's
actually that high an average, that's true. There are so many different
"barrels" I wasn't positive which one is the one used in the general
sense. The 31.5/gal factor came from my Perry's Chem E Handbook...
Morris Dovey wrote:
....
> We can expect that as the cost of fuel rises, more and more land will
> be given over to ethanol production - and other crops will be
> sacrificed until a (shifting) economic balance is achieved. Soybean
> derivatives (everything from livestock feed to plastics) will become
> sharply more expensive.
> If the pressures to maximize ethanol production are sufficiently high,
> we face the danger of taking a giant step backward to repetitively
> planting the same crop on the same land until the soil is exhausted.
> Should we get to that point, there will be serious breakage - and the
> worst of it won't be in the corn belt.
I think you overestimate this scenario extensively...for one thing, at
present there are millions of acres of formerly-producing crop ground in
the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) that could, <IF> (that's the "big
if" :) ) it were necessary and economical, be brought back into
production for many of these ancillary crops as well as corn and
soybeans. As for land "exhaustion", if there is any segment that is
concerned w/ maintaining productivity of the land, it is we
producers--after all, that is our <direct> livelihood, not indirect.
....
Doug Miller wrote:
>
> In article <[email protected]>, Juergen Hannappel <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >To answer you last question: Yes...
> >The economy needs a restructuring so that it provides work and supply
> >for all *without economic growth*, otherwise there will be no future
> >worth living in.
> >
> In order for that to work, there must also be no population growth. How do you
> propose to achieve *that*?
Plus, I doubt the folks in the third world countries will continue to be
content with that scenario even if their populations <were> to somehow
magically become stable...
Juergen Hannappel wrote:
>
...
> Of course economic growth in the hird world is still necessary, but in
> the developped part the situation is different; and having an economy
> whose main interest is growth also in the third world will not work in
> the long term.
...
Well, in actuality it <isn't> so different except in relative starting
points---there are still sizable populations of disadvantaged in every
country of which I am aware and I know of no magic bullet to make those
on the lower rungs to become content to remaining there in
perpetuity....
W/ apologies to Garrison Keeler, your scenario asks for a situation
where ".. all families' incomes are above average."
Dave Hinz wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 11:16:36 -0700, lgb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Hmmm. Fish stocks are being depleted, if not eliminated, by
> > overfishing.
>
> In places.
Yes, the places where those fish live. The stocks of tuna, for
example,
remeain undiminished in parts of the ocieans where tuna do not live.
>
> > and the very atmosphere
> > is changing due to pollution. CO2 is going up, O is going down.
>
> Cite, please?
Google is your friend.
>
> > The
> > reduction in the ozone layer is increasing skin cancer rates,
>
> And, let's see. That's related to pollution how, exactly?
>
Google re: clorinated hydrocarbon.
> > and
> > nobody's quite sure what's happening to the amphibians.
>
> Well then I'm not quite sure if I should be concerned.
Not likely any of the above will shorten your life. I assume
you don't care about anything beyond your demise.
--
FF
Todd Fatheree wrote:
> ,,,
> (http://www.climateark.org/articles/1999/atoxfall.htm) from 1999 measured
> the atmospheric oxygen change over a 20-year period to be (are you sitting
> down) 0.03%. One wonders the amount of error contained in that calculation
> and if it has any application outside of the Cape Grim Baseline Air
> Pollution Station in Tasmania. ...
One supposes that if the online article was based on published papers
the error you wonder about will be estimated therein.
I think the longest running record of direct measurement of atmospheric
CO2 is from teh Mauna Loa observatory. Here is one paper addressing
it:
Thoning, K.W., P.P. Tans and W.D. Komhyr. 1989. Atmospheric carbon
dioxide at Mauna Loa Observatory, 2, Analysis of the NOAA/GMCC data,
1974 - 1985, J. Geophys. Res., 94, 8549-8565.
--
FF
"lgb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
> > It seems that with higher CO2 levels,
> > these green things (we'll call them "plants") work overtime doing
something
> > called photosynthesis, which releases oxygen.
> >
> That's a common misconception. Plants "inhale" CO2 and "exhale" O when
> light is falling on their leaves. When it is dark, the process is
> reversed. O in and CO2 out. That's why aquarium keepers like me, with
> heavily planted tanks, install an air bubbler that comes on when the
> lights go out and off when the lights go on.
What this proves is that your aquarium is a poor model of the earth. On the
earth, there are more plants available during the summer months and at
latitudes closer to the equator. Therefore, there is a small net effect of
positive O2 creation.
> It is true that deciduous trees have their leaves in seasons where
> daylight hours exceed night hours, so they do produce a net increase in
> O, but this does go down somewhat on cloudy days.
>
> Since evergreens have "leaves" the whole year, their O vs CO2 tends to
> be pretty much a wash.
So, according to your analysis, we can take the evergreens out of the
equation, which leaves a net positive effect on O2 from deciduous trees.
todd
On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 11:16:36 -0700, lgb <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hmmm. Fish stocks are being depleted, if not eliminated, by
> overfishing.
In places.
> Land, as well as sea, animals and plants are going extinct
> due to habitat loss, pollution, and overhunting,
Just as they've been doing for millions of years,
> and the very atmosphere
> is changing due to pollution. CO2 is going up, O is going down.
Cite, please?
> The
> reduction in the ozone layer is increasing skin cancer rates,
And, let's see. That's related to pollution how, exactly?
> and
> nobody's quite sure what's happening to the amphibians.
Well then I'm not quite sure if I should be concerned.
> Seems to me the hubris, or maybe just plain ignorance, is on your side
> of the fence.
> "None are so blind as those who will not see."
Seeing something doesn't mean that (a) it's real, (b) it's caused by
what you think it's caused by, or (c) it's anything new or unique.
Correlation is not the same thing as causation. You've seen the
statistics regarding water drinking habits and mass murderers, haven't
you?
On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 08:51:24 -0700, lgb <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 11:16:36 -0700, lgb <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > Hmmm. Fish stocks are being depleted, if not eliminated, by
>> > overfishing.
>> In places.
> Perhaps you could list the places in which they are abundant?
Perhaps you could do your own homework? It was your assertion, not
mine.
>> > Land, as well as sea, animals and plants are going extinct
>> > due to habitat loss, pollution, and overhunting,
>> Just as they've been doing for millions of years,
> From pollution?
You're being intentionally dense, aren't you. Did I _say_ from
pollution?
>> > and the very atmosphere
>> > is changing due to pollution. CO2 is going up, O is going down.
>>
>> Cite, please?
>
> You got me. I couldn't find the report on oxygen levels I'd read on
> this.
Well then.
> However, it's accepted by almost everyone that CO2 is going up.
Yes. What is not accepted by "almost everyone" (as if popularity
decides science), is _why_ that's happening.
> By definition, if the percent of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing the
> percent of oxygen, and nitrogen, and the trace gases, are going down.
Word games. I thought you were better than that. How about you go find
out what's going up and what's going down and come back to us once you
have a coherent point, Sparky.
>> > reduction in the ozone layer is increasing skin cancer rates,
>>
>> And, let's see. That's related to pollution how, exactly?
>>
> What's destroying the ozone layer, Dave?
What do you _think_ is destroying it? Molecules of very heavy freon?
Why is it that ozone down here (where, you know, the evil R-12 can get
to it) is a pollutant (Ozone Action Days, anyone? Hello?)?
Can you show me the long term data on the ozone layer, going back say,
1000 years? Is it cyclical?
>> > and
>> > nobody's quite sure what's happening to the amphibians.
>>
>> Well then I'm not quite sure if I should be concerned.
>>
> Oh good - ignorance is bliss.
You said "nobody's quite sure what's happening", so I'll be one of the
"nobody's quite sure" what to do. Your statement is laughably
ambiguous.
> I don't know why asthma has greatly increased over the last few decades
> either, but I sure would like to.
Has it? Or, is it being diagnosed more?
> I'm never sure with you Dave, whether your really believe your positions
> or you're just yanking my chain. But in either case, some may take your
> views as stated, so I felt I shoud respond. But this is the end of it
> for me. You can have the last words, mistaken though they be.
I'm still trying to figure out what the hell your points are.
> BTW, do you believe the earth is only 6000 years old?
Why in the world would you ascribe an idiotic view like that to me? You
do this with everyone you disagree with, assume that you disagree on
every topic there is? That's an odd failing, if so.
On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 20:50:59 -0500, Todd Fatheree <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've done your work for you and found a report of falling oxygen
> levels. Apparently, an Australian study
> (http://www.climateark.org/articles/1999/atoxfall.htm) from 1999 measured
> the atmospheric oxygen change over a 20-year period to be (are you sitting
> down) 0.03%.
Oh, good. Here I thought I was just getting out of breath easy due to
age and being not in such good shape. Turns out Larry was actually
right after all.
On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 22:26:10 -0700, lgb <[email protected]> wrote:
> Sorry - my last post got away before I was finished.
That's OK, you made sense there for a minute.
> And that's the last time I'm going to respond to a demand that I give
> references to a widely known fact. Next time, you give me references
> that prove I'm wrong.
Bullshit. You said O2 levels were going _DOWN_, and claimed that was a
widely known fact. You made a connected 2-part statement, which is what
I asked for the cite on. Pretending that the CO2 question was why the
cite was asked for is a cheap, ineffective diversionary tactic.
"lgb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
> > It seems that with higher CO2 levels,
> > these green things (we'll call them "plants") work overtime doing
something
> > called photosynthesis, which releases oxygen.
> >
> That's a common misconception. Plants "inhale" CO2 and "exhale" O when
> light is falling on their leaves. When it is dark, the process is
> reversed. O in and CO2 out. That's why aquarium keepers like me, with
> heavily planted tanks, install an air bubbler that comes on when the
> lights go out and off when the lights go on.
>
> It is true that deciduous trees have their leaves in seasons where
> daylight hours exceed night hours, so they do produce a net increase in
> O, but this does go down somewhat on cloudy days.
>
> Since evergreens have "leaves" the whole year, their O vs CO2 tends to
> be pretty much a wash.
>
You a _woodworker_? What the hell do you think wood is made of?
Make something out of a rainforest tree and pull it out of the carbon cycle.
Boycott it and let it burn....
On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 23:12:43 -0600, lgb wrote
(in article <[email protected]>):
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
>> Well, why didn't you say "it's accepted by almost everyone" right away.
>> That is certainly one compelling statement. Some people might expect a
>> concept with near-universal agreement to be easy to back up.
>>
> Sorry, I should have said that a Google search on CO2 increase in the
> atmosphere got almost a million hits. A lot of them are junk, but if
> you think I'm going to examine each one you're nuts. However, look for
> yourself. If you're too lazy, here's a few:
>
>
>
Dang, just think if the world switched completely over to Hydrogen powered
autos. The emissions from their tailpipes is a far more potent "green house"
gas than CO2 is....
-Bruce
Greetings and Salutations...
On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 22:12:43 -0700, lgb <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>says...
>> Well, why didn't you say "it's accepted by almost everyone" right away.
>> That is certainly one compelling statement. Some people might expect a
>> concept with near-universal agreement to be easy to back up.
>>
>Sorry, I should have said that a Google search on CO2 increase in the
>atmosphere got almost a million hits. A lot of them are junk, but if
>you think I'm going to examine each one you're nuts. However, look for
>yourself. If you're too lazy, here's a few:
The good news is that you would not be ABLE to "examine each
one". Google limits you to the first 1000 URLS (or, roughly, the
first 100 pages) it returns, even if it DOES claim to have found
thousands of them.
To add to the annoyance, they also return the pages according
to their "ranking" system...which gives you the pages with the most
other links TO them first. As a researcher, I find this REALLY
annoying, because the real treasures are not found on the paths that
EVERYONE has plodded down. Rather they are found in the dusty
back shelves where no one has been for years.
However, Google's respose to this is "if you are getting that
many hits you are doing a bad search and should improve it".
Regards
Dave Mundt
"lgb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > > and the very atmosphere
> > > is changing due to pollution. CO2 is going up, O is going down.
> >
> > Cite, please?
>
> You got me. I couldn't find the report on oxygen levels I'd read on
> this. However, it's accepted by almost everyone that CO2 is going up.
> By definition, if the percent of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing the
> percent of oxygen, and nitrogen, and the trace gases, are going down.
Well, why didn't you say "it's accepted by almost everyone" right away.
That is certainly one compelling statement. Some people might expect a
concept with near-universal agreement to be easy to back up. But don't
worry...I've done your work for you and found a report of falling oxygen
levels. Apparently, an Australian study
(http://www.climateark.org/articles/1999/atoxfall.htm) from 1999 measured
the atmospheric oxygen change over a 20-year period to be (are you sitting
down) 0.03%. One wonders the amount of error contained in that calculation
and if it has any application outside of the Cape Grim Baseline Air
Pollution Station in Tasmania. I know this will be difficult for the
Chicken Little society to comprehend, but CO2 input is not the only variable
in the atmospheric gas equation. It seems that with higher CO2 levels,
these green things (we'll call them "plants") work overtime doing something
called photosynthesis, which releases oxygen.
But hey, don't the let the absence of your ability to locate a fact keep you
(and "almost everyone" else) from believing it.
todd
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> As far as the view that "this small planet" is desperately impacted by
> the actions of those within it; this seems to be hubris of a high order.
> Can one mess up one's local environment? Absolutely, 19'th century London
> is a prime example of that, as are some of our own industrial cities at the
> beginning of the industrial revolution. Can we "destroy the planet"? That
> is highly debateable; consider the amount of energy and pollution that just
> *one* volcanic explosion can produce compared to the output of an
> industrialized nation.
>
Hmmm. Fish stocks are being depleted, if not eliminated, by
overfishing. Land, as well as sea, animals and plants are going extinct
due to habitat loss, pollution, and overhunting, and the very atmosphere
is changing due to pollution. CO2 is going up, O is going down. The
reduction in the ozone layer is increasing skin cancer rates, and
nobody's quite sure what's happening to the amphibians.
Seems to me the hubris, or maybe just plain ignorance, is on your side
of the fence.
"None are so blind as those who will not see."
--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever
Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 21:57:35 -0700, the opaque Mark & Juanita
> <[email protected]> clearly wrote:
>
....
> >
> > That the error bars are only 0.5C is the first part that anyone with some
> >degree of skepticism should focus upon. The second is the deltas that are
> >being extrapolated for periods before the advent of the thermometer are
> >being assessed at less than 0.5C, when the exact causes for tree ring size,
> >ice core sample depth, and other "indicators" are hardly precise enough to
> >estimate global average temperature to such a degree of precision.
>
> "How can we make our point with so little data to go on? Aha, make the
> increments so small the data (with which we want to scare folks) is
> off the charts!" Oh, and "Let's estimate data about 10x longer than
> we have ANY data for.)
SPLORF! I realize that is not your only criticism but it is hilarious
that you would base ANY criticism on the tic spacing on the temeprature
axis. If they spaced the tics 10 degrees apart the plot would look the
same, it would just be harder to convert the picture to numbers.
...
>
> Recommendation for Chicken Littles: Read Michael Crichton's book
> "State of Fear" for both a great story and an excellent reference
> work with detailed bibliography for further research. It will give
> you a whole new perspective, I guarantee!
Fiction or non-Fiction?
> ---
> Annoy a politician: Be trustworthy, faithful, and honest!
> ---
Daring advice! Let us know how that works out for you, unless they
take your internet access away ...
--
FF
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 21:57:35 -0700, the opaque Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> clearly wrote:
FF said:
>>One example is found here:
>>
>>http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/wca/2004/wca_24c.html
>>
>>The chart appears to be a graph of temperature as a function
>>of time. Note the caption on the left side which indicates
>>the temperature origin is a "1961 to 1990 average." What is
>>meant by "1961 to 1990 average" is a mystery to me but inasmuch
>>as choice of origin is arbitrary let's not worry about
>>that.
>
> You have the correct chart. This is the chart that various ("Earth in
>the Balance") former presidential candidates have used to highlight the
>future devastation to be caused by the alarming increase in temperature in
>only the past several years. The 1961 to 1990 average temperature was
>taken as a baseline and is the zero bar of said chart. The numbers below
>zero indicate average temperatures below the reference bar and those above
>indicate average temperatures greater than the reference. The large spike
>at the end of the chart is intended to cause alarm due to a) it's large
>slope and b) the fact that it is fully 0.5 C above the average from the
>previous 30 years and well above the average for the past millenia.
>>It looks to me like the error bars (in grey--if those are
>>not error bars I don't know what they are) are about +/-
>>.5 degree for observations prior to about 1600, perhaps +/-
>>.3 degrees from 1600 - 1900 and I won't hazard a guess as
>>to what they are in the more recent data.
>
> Given that the grey bars are error bars, then the overall exercise and
>alarmism raised by the presentation of said chart are beyond simple
>hysterics and border on fraud. The blue and red lines are those focused
>upon the by the Chicken Little crowd. The error bars indicate that this
>entire exercise is attempting to extrapolate future climate from noise.
Fraud, misreading, hysteria = the Greens.
>Having spent the last 15 years of my career in various development projects
>that rely heavily upon integration and test and data collection, I can
>categorically state that attempting to extrapolate performance from noise
>measurements is a fool's errand.
That's what the Chicken Littles ARE, Mark. <g>
>>So, what again is your objection? Do you feel the the variance
>>in the data prior to 1600 was underestimated? If so, what
>>do you allege has been mishandled in the error estimation?
>>
>
> That the error bars are only 0.5C is the first part that anyone with some
>degree of skepticism should focus upon. The second is the deltas that are
>being extrapolated for periods before the advent of the thermometer are
>being assessed at less than 0.5C, when the exact causes for tree ring size,
>ice core sample depth, and other "indicators" are hardly precise enough to
>estimate global average temperature to such a degree of precision.
"How can we make our point with so little data to go on? Aha, make the
increments so small the data (with which we want to scare folks) is
off the charts!" Oh, and "Let's estimate data about 10x longer than
we have ANY data for.)
>
>>
>
> The point is that this is the kind of evidence that is "widely accepted"
>and "peer reviewed" and critically acclaimed as showing the coming
>environmental disaster that is global warming. It is also the kind of
>evidence to which people are referring when they say, "it has been proven
>that global warming is occuring."
The peers should be reviewed accordingly, wot?
Recommendation for Chicken Littles: Read Michael Crichton's book
"State of Fear" for both a great story and an excellent reference
work with detailed bibliography for further research. It will give
you a whole new perspective, I guarantee!
---
Annoy a politician: Be trustworthy, faithful, and honest!
---
http://www.diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 11:16:36 -0700, lgb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Hmmm. Fish stocks are being depleted, if not eliminated, by
> > overfishing.
>
> In places.
>
Perhaps you could list the places in which they are abundant?
> > Land, as well as sea, animals and plants are going extinct
> > due to habitat loss, pollution, and overhunting,
>
> Just as they've been doing for millions of years,
From pollution?
>
> > and the very atmosphere
> > is changing due to pollution. CO2 is going up, O is going down.
>
> Cite, please?
You got me. I couldn't find the report on oxygen levels I'd read on
this. However, it's accepted by almost everyone that CO2 is going up.
By definition, if the percent of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing the
percent of oxygen, and nitrogen, and the trace gases, are going down.
>
> > The
> > reduction in the ozone layer is increasing skin cancer rates,
>
> And, let's see. That's related to pollution how, exactly?
>
What's destroying the ozone layer, Dave?
> > and
> > nobody's quite sure what's happening to the amphibians.
>
> Well then I'm not quite sure if I should be concerned.
>
Oh good - ignorance is bliss.
I don't know why asthma has greatly increased over the last few decades
either, but I sure would like to.
I'm never sure with you Dave, whether your really believe your positions
or you're just yanking my chain. But in either case, some may take your
views as stated, so I felt I shoud respond. But this is the end of it
for me. You can have the last words, mistaken though they be.
BTW, do you believe the earth is only 6000 years old?
--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> It seems that with higher CO2 levels,
> these green things (we'll call them "plants") work overtime doing something
> called photosynthesis, which releases oxygen.
>
That's a common misconception. Plants "inhale" CO2 and "exhale" O when
light is falling on their leaves. When it is dark, the process is
reversed. O in and CO2 out. That's why aquarium keepers like me, with
heavily planted tanks, install an air bubbler that comes on when the
lights go out and off when the lights go on.
It is true that deciduous trees have their leaves in seasons where
daylight hours exceed night hours, so they do produce a net increase in
O, but this does go down somewhat on cloudy days.
Since evergreens have "leaves" the whole year, their O vs CO2 tends to
be pretty much a wash.
--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> Well, why didn't you say "it's accepted by almost everyone" right away.
> That is certainly one compelling statement. Some people might expect a
> concept with near-universal agreement to be easy to back up.
>
Sorry, I should have said that a Google search on CO2 increase in the
atmosphere got almost a million hits. A lot of them are junk, but if
you think I'm going to examine each one you're nuts. However, look for
yourself. If you're too lazy, here's a few:
--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever
Sorry - my last post got away before I was finished.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> Well, why didn't you say "it's accepted by almost everyone" right away.
> That is certainly one compelling statement. Some people might expect a
> concept with near-universal agreement to be easy to back up.
>
Sorry, I should have said that a Google search on CO2 increase in the
atmosphere got almost a million hits. A least half of them are junk,
but if you think I'm going to examine each one you're nuts. However,
look for yourself. If you're too lazy, here's a few:
http://www.strom.clemson.edu/becker/prtm320/commons/carbon3.html
http://www.biology.duke.edu/bio265/sga/atmosphere.html
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/newrec/2421/tmpl/story.10.html
http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/preslectures/schnoor96/page3.html
And that's the last time I'm going to respond to a demand that I give
references to a widely known fact. Next time, you give me references
that prove I'm wrong.
Here's some more unsupported assertions:
1. The earth is round (OK, more pear shaped), not flat.
2. The earth circles the sun, not the other way around.
3. We really did land on the moon, it wasn't a Hollywood set.
4. There really are people deluded enough to argue against the above.
--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 09:38:06 -0500, Duane Bozarth <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Juergen Hannappel wrote:
>...
>> True. Economic growth worked and enabled a vast array of very good
>> things. I do not deny that. I just say that it can't go on like this
>> forever, and the less we plan for the era after the growth the worse
>> it will hit.
>
>But otoh, in your reply to me you pointed out specifically you have no
>clue of <what> to do nor do you intend to help in creating or drafting a
>solution... :(
>
>Whiners and hand-wringers the world has plenty of already...
The views espoused by Dr. Hannappel and those of his political bent are
driven by the vision of the world's economy as a zero-sum game. i.e., if
one person gains, by definition, another person must lose. This is
certainly true of many economic systems and those of the Eastern block
countries as well as the model which many European countries seem to be
following. These economic systems tend to concentrate decisions and
control in the hands of a few people. This is not necessarily true in a
market driven economy, when one person gains, others gain as well by the
utilization of the wealth created by that person. Is the system perfect?
No, that's because humans are not perfect, but it certainly has proven to
be the most durable and consistent with human nature. There is simply no
way in which an economy can survive at a steady-state for a sustained
period of time, the economy is either going to grow, or it will become
stagnant and wane. The benefit of the free market economy is that
decisions (both good and bad) are spread among a broad, diverse group of
people. The downfall of planned economies is that decisions are
concentrated in the hands of a few (sometimes very few) people. These may
be highly educated, intelligent, and maybe in a few cases, wise people, but
they are still people, subject to error and mistakes. Since the decisions
in such economies are concentrated in a few hands, the results of mistakes
have a much larger impact upon a much greater number of people who have no
power over those decisions. We were recently subjected to a seminar by a
leading "expert" who was the head of a consulting company that was going to
help our company build "green" products. Some of his ideas had merit.
However, one of his comments really struck me. This man was very enamoured
with China and how they do things, pointing to 5000 year old rice paddies
and how the locals had to know exactly how to balance all their inputs and
outputs to keep farming those same places for 5000 years. He then went on
to mention his conversations with one of the leaders who was in charge of a
large housing planning bureau. She told him she was responsible for the
construction of approximately 24 million houses to house those in her
charge. He marvelled at how she had such responsiblity and how she needed
to be sure that the decisions she made took all factors into account. I
sat there wondering why anyone would *want* an economy in which one person
was responsible for the construction of 24 million houses.
As far as the view that "this small planet" is desperately impacted by
the actions of those within it; this seems to be hubris of a high order.
Can one mess up one's local environment? Absolutely, 19'th century London
is a prime example of that, as are some of our own industrial cities at the
beginning of the industrial revolution. Can we "destroy the planet"? That
is highly debateable; consider the amount of energy and pollution that just
*one* volcanic explosion can produce compared to the output of an
industrialized nation. Should we callously waste resources? Of course
not, but to be miserly and live in misery with the idea that this is
somehow a noble cause is equally ridiculous. When you look at the small
amount of land mass that humans actually occupy, we are certainly not
pushing the limits of growth at this time. There are resources both on
land and sea that have not yet been utilized.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On 7/4/2005 4:28 AM Todd Fatheree mumbled something about the following:
> "lgb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>>says...
>>
>>> It seems that with higher CO2 levels,
>>>these green things (we'll call them "plants") work overtime doing
>
> something
>
>>>called photosynthesis, which releases oxygen.
>>>
>>
>>That's a common misconception. Plants "inhale" CO2 and "exhale" O when
>>light is falling on their leaves. When it is dark, the process is
>>reversed. O in and CO2 out. That's why aquarium keepers like me, with
>>heavily planted tanks, install an air bubbler that comes on when the
>>lights go out and off when the lights go on.
>
>
> What this proves is that your aquarium is a poor model of the earth. On the
> earth, there are more plants available during the summer months and at
> latitudes closer to the equator. Therefore, there is a small net effect of
> positive O2 creation.
>
>
>>It is true that deciduous trees have their leaves in seasons where
>>daylight hours exceed night hours, so they do produce a net increase in
>>O, but this does go down somewhat on cloudy days.
>>
>>Since evergreens have "leaves" the whole year, their O vs CO2 tends to
>>be pretty much a wash.
>
>
> So, according to your analysis, we can take the evergreens out of the
> equation, which leaves a net positive effect on O2 from deciduous trees.
>
> todd
>
>
Not only that, he's dead wrong about the process.
There are two parts to photosynthesis:
The Light Reaction happens in the thylakoid membrane and converts light
energy to chemical energy. This chemical reaction must, therefore, take
place in the light. Chlorophyll and several other pigments such as
beta-carotene are organized in clusters in the thylakoid membrane and
are involved in the light reaction. Each of these differently-colored
pigments can absorb a slightly different color of light and pass its
energy to the central chlorphyll molecule to do photosynthesis. The
central part of the chemical structure of a chlorophyll molecule is a
porphyrin ring, which consists of several fused rings of carbon and
nitrogen with a magnesium ion in the center.
The energy harvested via the light reaction is stored by forming a
chemical called ATP (adenosine triphosphate), a compound used by cells
for energy storage. This chemical is made of the nucleotide adenine
bonded to a ribose sugar, and that is bonded to three phosphate groups.
This molecule is very similar to the building blocks for our DNA.
The Dark Reaction takes place in the stroma within the chloroplast, and
converts CO2 to sugar. This reaction doesn't directly need light in
order to occur, but it does need the products of the light reaction (ATP
and another chemical called NADPH). The dark reaction involves a cycle
called the Calvin cycle in which CO2 and energy from ATP are used to
form sugar. Actually, notice that the first product of photosynthesis is
a three-carbon compound called glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate. Almost
immediately, two of these join to form a glucose molecule.
--
Odinn
RCOS #7
SENS(less)
SLUG
"The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshipped anything but himself." -- Sir Richard Francis Burton
Reeky's unofficial homepage ... http://www.reeky.org
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org
rot13 [email protected] to reply
"lgb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sorry - my last post got away before I was finished.
>
>
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
> > Well, why didn't you say "it's accepted by almost everyone" right away.
> > That is certainly one compelling statement. Some people might expect a
> > concept with near-universal agreement to be easy to back up.
> >
> Sorry, I should have said that a Google search on CO2 increase in the
> atmosphere got almost a million hits. A least half of them are junk,
> but if you think I'm going to examine each one you're nuts. However,
> look for yourself. If you're too lazy, here's a few:
>
> http://www.strom.clemson.edu/becker/prtm320/commons/carbon3.html
> http://www.biology.duke.edu/bio265/sga/atmosphere.html
> http://www.columbia.edu/cu/newrec/2421/tmpl/story.10.html
> http://sdrc.lib.uiowa.edu/preslectures/schnoor96/page3.html
>
> And that's the last time I'm going to respond to a demand that I give
> references to a widely known fact. Next time, you give me references
> that prove I'm wrong.
In your own words, you "couldn't find the report on oxygen levels I'd read
on this".
Actually, I was more interested in the assertion that atmospheric O2 was
falling. As it turns out, although you won't find this cited in any of the
links above, O2 is falling at a rate of about 2ppm/year.
(http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-2.1/broecker.htm). [see how easy it
is to provide cites?]. I don't think that it's a "widely known fact" that
O2 levels are decreasing. I'd say that many people probably know that
atmospheric CO2 is increasing, but that doesn't automatically mean to the
average person that O2 goes down. And by the way, according to the author
of the artlicle I referenced, decreasing O2 is never going to be a problem.
And just so we're clear, I don't dispute that CO2 is rising. I've just
never heard that there was the same level of concern with atmospheric O2.
Here's some more unsupported assertions:
>
> 1. The earth is round (OK, more pear shaped), not flat.
Technically, the earth is shaped like an oblate spheroid.
todd
Morris Dovey wrote:
...
> I wish I shared your confidence and optimism.
No point in being "gloomy Gus" as Grandpa always said (and he made it
through the Dust Bowl days in SW KS--right in the middle of some the
most severely ravaged areas--and we raised some 60 bu/A <dryland!> wheat
this year on that same ground.
The Court specifically allowed for States to set controls over such
behavior and I strongly expect them to do so. Most midwestern states
already have limitations on corporate farming altho istr that Iowa is
not as strict as the "bread basket" states from ND to TX? I know there
is more pressure in some areas in Iowa from increasing urbanization that
isn't as strong farther west where it's drier. The key production
limitation here continues to be water, which will become more so, even
more limiting than fuel availability and cost.
Juergen Hannappel wrote:
>
> Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > Well, in actuality it <isn't> so different except in relative starting
> > points---there are still sizable populations of disadvantaged in every
> > country of which I am aware and I know of no magic bullet to make those
> > on the lower rungs to become content to remaining there in
> > perpetuity....
>
> Of course leveling the standard of living has to go in both
> directions: better for the poor, worse for the rich.
>
> Globally speaking, all of us in the west are rich.
Well, that change in human nature has eluded all who've tried it so far
and likely will continue to do so. Not much use in wishing for what
will never be...
> >
> > W/ apologies to Garrison Keeler, your scenario asks for a situation
> > where ".. all families' incomes are above average."
>
> We should aim at getting average and median closer togeher.
...
That's an aim directly targetted by most developed nations' tax
structure--but it's not clear that punitively taxing the upper echelon
actually does anything to actually promote the objective.
Robert Bonomi wrote:
>
...
> Pulling land out of CRP is a *short*term* only 'fix'. *SMART* farm
> production involves carefully designed rotation of crops planted on a
> given plot *AND* the cycling of that land _out_of_production_use_ as a
> regular element in that rotation. *MOST* CRP acres are land that would
> be 'idled' even if CRP didn't exist.
The last of those is definitely <not> true...well over half of the
county in which I reside is now in CRP (including a sizable fraction of
ours). The reason is only that it was an available option at a time
when a significant number of those farming it were, as my Dad, at the
age of retirement and the kids (including me) had left owing to various
factors, a lot having to do w/ the great "land depression" after the
Carter era grain embargoes that killed the small grain export markets.
> You get more acres in production, *BUT*, over time (meaning 5 years, or
> *less*), due to degraded land quality from continuous use, yield/acre goes
> _down_. The effective increase in production is nowhere close to the
> increased acreage.
No, the average production of the similar land still in production has
actually increased dramatically since the time of the initial CRP
put-ins. This is owing to continuing improvements in genetics as well
as practices. Low- and no-till has had marked success in actually
<improving> tilth as opposed to degrading it combined w/ decreasing
inputs. Of course, the cultivation cycle <does> include rotation,
including fallow periods. This is a mandatory part of an effective pest
control strategy even without the consideration of fertility.
There is <no> chance that any significant numbers of people living on
and farming it for a living will not continue to improve practices, not
degrade them. It is economically required to survive as well as common
sense. Plus, if my input requirements were to skyrocket owing to such
practice, my friendly hometown banker would immediately demand to know
why and put a stop to my endangering his collateral! :)
I've not and do not advocate widespread removal of CRP ground--I only
mentioned it as it is there in quite large acreages and could, if
circumstances were right, be returned to production. If the 2007 farm
bill reduces the payout as much again as the last time, I think it will
be inevitable that a sizable amount <will> be broken back out as it will
not be feasible economically to maintain it with it not producing more
than it would be at that point. I'm hoping it won't, but making long
term plans just in case...
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Duane Bozarth wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > >
> > > Duane Bozarth wrote:
> > > > Robert Bonomi wrote:
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > > Have you ever run the numbers on how much biodiesel one can produce from
> > > > > an acre of farmland in a year?
> > > >
> > > > Ethanol is better deal to date...
> > >
> > > Made from corn? I have been wondering if it would not be better to
> > > use sorghum, which grows well over much of the same range as corn,
> > > for producing the sugar used to make ethanol.
> >
> > Primarily corn, yes. Sorghum doesn't have nearly the sugar content of
> > corn and nowhere nor the yield/acre.
>
> I gather that the suagar/acre ration is lower for sorghum. I'm
> not surprised that the corn kernals have a higher concentration
> of sugar than the sorghum stalks but am surpised that there is
> more sugar in the whole corn plant, than in the whole sorghum plant.
> When corn is raised for ethanol production, do they squeeze the
> whole plant, rather than just the kernals?
No, the grain is the feedstock, not the plant...the grain must ripen to
achiece maximum energy content (and as a secondary necessity, must be
dry enough to be handled and stored w/o danger of mold damage and
spontaneous combustion) and at that time the sugars in the foliage are
largely used up.
> One wonders what selective breeding/genetic engineering can do for
> each, improving the range for sorghum and the sugar content for
> both. Appears it would take a ten-fold improvement in the yield
> before biofuels could replace petroleum fuels and that still
> does not address coals usage, which generates most of the electricity
> used in the US.
There are continuing significant improvements in hybrids specifically
for ethanol production in corn and soybeans for biodiesel. I am unaware
of any research into large-scale usage of milo for ethanol--I believe
the potential yields are simply not competitive w/ corn.
No one, even its most ardent supporters, is claiming biofuels can
replace all petroleum. It is simply a resource that is (a) renewable,
and (b) does have a positive NEV (net energy value). The latter does
continue to increase owing to both improved feedstocks and processing.
I suspect both will continue to do so for the foreseeable future, but
have no idea where we are now as compared to the ultimate that may be
achievable.
As for central station generation, the switch from coal to
petroleum-fired was a major mistake as well was the abandonment of
nuclear which <should> be the predominant form of central station
generation.
Juergen Hannappel wrote:
>
> Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> >> Of course leveling the standard of living has to go in both
> >> directions: better for the poor, worse for the rich.
> >>
> >> Globally speaking, all of us in the west are rich.
> >
> > Well, that change in human nature has eluded all who've tried it so far
>
> I know.
>
> > and likely will continue to do so. Not much use in wishing for what
> > will never be...
>
> Guess why I will definedly not have children.
>
> [...]
>
> > That's an aim directly targetted by most developed nations' tax
> > structure--but it's not clear that punitively taxing the upper echelon
> > actually does anything to actually promote the objective.
>
> Since the punitive tax is so extremely mild the effect is small.
> --
In places outside the US it isn't nearly as small...I ran across an
engineer at a Canadian power plant a number of years ago while servicing
equipment on site. He was complaining that the pay packet contained
less than half of his earnings. Needless to say, it was not motivation
to improve the economics of his province, thus providing for the growth
required to "lift" the others in less fortunate circumstances. It
simply is against human nature, and thereby self-limiting.
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Duane Bozarth wrote:
...
> > ...
> >
> > The Court specifically allowed for States to set controls over such
> > behavior
>
> [the behaviour in question being abuse of emminent domain to effect
> tranfer of ownership from one private party to another private party]
>
> > and I strongly expect them to do so.
>
> That's the problem, not the solution! Leaving it up to government
> to decide who may keep their property and who must sell it to
> another PRIVATE party is not only morally wrong it is also certain
> to result in land-usage that favors short-term monetary profit at
> the expense of anything else including what would be best for
> society in the long run.
...
That's not the take I have....I fully expect public outcry to force
legislatures to severely restrict the usage of eminent domain...
Dave Hinz wrote:
>
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 07:40:20 -0500, Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote:
...
>
> Right. I've got 17 acres of it myself.
Well, as I suspected, your experience "back there" :) is in the buffer
or wetland programs...we have 6 full quarters of our own plus 4 more we
still rent on shares...that's right at 1600 A. There are another 10
contiguous quarters abutting all this from four separate neighbors who
all chose to retire and start the CRP lay-in at or within a couple of
years of the time Dad started. All except one were at least in their
70's at that time. The one exception had nearly gone under w/ the hog
market disaster and took it as the only way to save the home place at
the time. He was in his early 60s. The same scenario took place over
large areas out here, not just in our county.
...
> > As for land "exhaustion", if there is any segment that is
> > concerned w/ maintaining productivity of the land, it is we
> > producers--after all, that is our <direct> livelihood, not indirect.
>
> Yes. The days of people being ignorant of crop rotation and soil
> quality are long gone. Some may choose not to do any of it, but they're
> at lesat not ignorant of it.
I know none that are real production farmers that aren't both aware and
serious practicioners--it is simply not possible to survive economically
otherwise. All those who used to operate that way are long gone, at
least around here.
> At 60 bucks an acre per year for CRP contracts, I can't see planting
> soybeans any time soon. If fuel goes waaaaaaaaaay up, then maybe.
At 38-40/A, I didn't either. At 28-32/A it starts looking different.
It could be hayed for breakeven most years...w/ the requirements for
mowing, weed control, etc., the operating cost is not trivial. We got
an infestation of sericea lespedeza from the forb seed they required us
to overseed into it for improved wildlife habitat. Now that has been
placed on the noxious weed list and it is incredibly difficult to
eradicate and at $80/gal (including the County Noxious Office kickback),
it costs $20/A just for the chemical, w/o application cost. It just
really chaps me that they <made> us plant the damn weeds in the grass in
the first place (which incidentally cost us half that cost out of pocket
besides), introducing the stuff in the first place, and now the entire
control cost comes out of our pocket on top of which the new leases are
for 20% or more less than the initial. If that occurs again, it's
almost a given it will <not> be renewed. It may stay in grass, but it at
least will be able to be hayed and grazed even if it doesn't go back
into grain production.
Doug Miller wrote:
>
...[regarding his view of US participation in WWII in Europe]...
> ...This nation came out of the worst economy of modern times
> and built a massive military machine _from_scratch_ to free ... [Axis-occupied > Europe] because we knew it was the right thing to do ...
Well, I just finished re-reading Churchill which chillingly reminds us
that actually, until France fell and Japan attacked Pearl Harbor we were
content to simply watch, participating only by Lend-Lease which took FDR
an inordinate amount of collusion to get passed. If it hadn't become
imperative to our own survival, it's not cleat there <would> ever have
been sufficient sentiment in the US to intervene in Europe alone until
it would (probably) have been too late to prevent the fall of England.
After that, while the eventual result would <probably> have been the
same, it would have become a <LOT> more dicey...
The recounting of the history in the first volume between the end of WWI
and the beginning of WWII is quite disconcerting, actually, and none
come off very good, including the US. :(
Dave Hinz wrote:
>
> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 15:01:27 -0500, Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Dave Hinz wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 07:40:20 -0500, Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> wrote:
> > ...
> >>
> >> Right. I've got 17 acres of it myself.
> >
> > Well, as I suspected, your experience "back there" :) is in the buffer
> > or wetland programs...
>
> Right, I only have 30 acres total. So, I'm happy leaving it in the long
> term crop it's growing now (trees). 8000 planted, plus a few thousand
> volunteers (mostly ash...nice lumber,that) is enough to keep me busy
> between keeping the listed weeds down, and keeping the lumber shaped
> properly.
30 acres here is just <almost> enough to turn the combine around in...
:)
...
> In my part of Wisconsin, no-till is just getting to be common in the
> family farm setting. So things move slow. Like I said, it's not that
> they're ignorant of it, they're just chosing not to use it in some
> cases.
Not everyone is in full no-till here, either, of course. But there's
nobody still turning enverything over w/ a oneway plow four times a year
like was done in the 50s, either. Anyone farming here is using modern
practices or thy're not surviving--fact of life w/ <$3 wheat and >$1.50
ag diesel...
> >> At 60 bucks an acre per year for CRP contracts, I can't see planting
> >> soybeans any time soon. If fuel goes waaaaaaaaaay up, then maybe.
>
> > At 38-40/A, I didn't either. At 28-32/A it starts looking different.
>
> Is that what it's down to now? My contract is good for a few more
> years, I didn't know it was that low.
Contract levels are based on conservation district and soil type, etc.
Back there where it rains, :) conditions are grossly different than this
dryland. But, for us, yes, that's what current are...what'll happen in
2007 is anybody's guess.
> > We got
> > an infestation of sericea lespedeza from the forb seed they required us
> > to overseed into it for improved wildlife habitat. Now that has been
> > placed on the noxious weed list and it is incredibly difficult to
> > eradicate and at $80/gal (including the County Noxious Office kickback),
>
> Nice going to whichever idiot told you to plant it then, eh? I bet he's
> not real popular...
Was part of the last CRP practices to "enhance recreational use"...out
here, of course, that means pheasant hunting, primarily. The forbs were
required practice to add to the seed availability. The lespedeza was
weed seed in the forbs, not an intended consequence. That I can live
with--shxx happens. What PO's me is no help in fixing a problem not of
our causing.
...
> I'm almost to the point where the trees make changing my mind a
> non-option. I've got (thinks....) maybe 5-6 acres in native
> wildflowers, the university sent out a couple of people to do a site
> survey and plan & got us started. Looks nice, keeps the weeds out.
Here, trees are a no-no...they're exotics. This is short grass prairie
(although there was significant bluestem and other taller grasses.
Coronado's journals talk of shoulder high in his wandering around.)
George wrote:
>
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> In my part of Wisconsin, no-till is just getting to be common in the
> > family farm setting. So things move slow. Like I said, it's not that
> > they're ignorant of it, they're just chosing not to use it in some
> > cases.
>
> In northern climes there often isn't enough useful rotting time for low or
> no till to be effective. Depending on the next crop, it is often best to
> turn it under.
Also, those areas typically do not have the moisture conservation
pressure and wind erosion issues to the extent we have, both of which
are addressed by low/no-till...
Juergen Hannappel wrote:
>
...
> But. All those past merits are no excuse to ruin the world now, and I
> sincerely disbelieve that the economic and ecological policies pursued
> in the US are realy in the best interest of the American People in the
> long run. I do not want any harm to come to America (and the rest of
> the world), and that is why I think you cannot go on as if there were
> no limits to growth.
Well, I don't think there's any <significant> difference in US policy
and other Western economies other than style. And certainly the
Chinese, Indians, Brazilians, etc., are going to overarch anything we're
doing now in the very near term. Not to even mention the past abuses in
former Iron Curtain industrial areas...
> Reconsider. It's for your own best.
I think your viewpoint is quite narrowly focussed by a political bent
not closely related to reality, unfortunately. (Not to feel badly,
there are many in the US w/ the same myopia and wishful thinking... :) )
What is your <realistic and achievable> solution to raising economic
status of those on the lower rungs in both the developed countries as
well as the rest of the world other than growth? Wishing for the
"haves" to slide back is both unrealistic and counter-productive.
Juergen Hannappel wrote:
...
> True. Economic growth worked and enabled a vast array of very good
> things. I do not deny that. I just say that it can't go on like this
> forever, and the less we plan for the era after the growth the worse
> it will hit.
But otoh, in your reply to me you pointed out specifically you have no
clue of <what> to do nor do you intend to help in creating or drafting a
solution... :(
Whiners and hand-wringers the world has plenty of already...
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On 3 Jul 2005 20:51:22 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Mark & Juanita wrote:
> >> On 3 Jul 2005 00:41:19 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Mark & Juanita wrote:
> >> >> On 2 Jul 2005 21:57:11 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> ... snip
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> ... alright fred, present a credible source for how global temperature
> >> >> change in tenths of a degree (which is the amount and rate being cited for
> >> >> global warming evidence) can be identified for periods before accurate
> >> >> weather records were kept.
> >> >
> >> >Why should I? You haven't presented any credible source indicating
> >> >that anyone claims to be able to do so.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> As you are so fond of saying, Google is your friend.
> >
> >My first response was snide and I've deleted it.
> >
> >What cuaght my eye was your statement "The idea that by measuring
> >tree ring size, one can determine the average temperature of an
> >area to within tenths of a degree is ludicrous."
> >
> >A quick google search using the search terms "tree ring" and "average
> >temperature" does not yield anyoone making such a claim.
> >
> >So, I remain skeptical that such a claim has been made.
> >
> >
> >> Try to hearken
> >> back to various debates in which the infamous "hockey stick" chart is shown
> >> that attempts to show departures from average temperatures in 1961 to 1990
> >> for the years 1000 AD to current time, showing this sudden jump of +.5C
> >> when the other tempertures were below. The difference is less than 0.5 C.
> >> The "measurements" from tree rings, corrals, ice cores and "historical
> >> records" (remember that no calibrated met stations existed in 1000 AD) are
> >> all being pegged at less than 0.5 C increments.
> >
> >A Google search for "hockey stick chart" yields a few pages that come
> >up 404, perhaps due ot the NHL strike, and a few that criticize
> >"the hocky stick chart" but I haven't found any explanation of the
> >chart itself.
> >
> >One example is found here:
> >
> >http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/wca/2004/wca_24c.html
> >
> >The chart appears to be a graph of temperature as a function
> >of time. Note the caption on the left side which indicates
> >the temperature origin is a "1961 to 1990 average." What is
> >meant by "1961 to 1990 average" is a mystery to me but inasmuch
> >as choice of origin is arbitrary let's not worry about
> >that.
> >
>
> You have the correct chart. This is the chart that various ("Earth in
> the Balance") former presidential candidates have used to highlight the
> future devastation to be caused by the alarming increase in temperature in
> only the past several years.
Have you found anything written about the chart by the persons who
(allegedly) created it?
> The 1961 to 1990 average temperature was
> taken as a baseline and is the zero bar of said chart.
The choice of origin is still as arbitrary
as it was when DesCartes introduced (or popularized) x-yplots.
E.g. they could have used 0 degrees C as their origin, the inter-
pretation would be the same, though John McCain would need stilts
or a very long pointer when using the chart.
> The numbers below
> zero indicate average temperatures below the reference bar and those above
> indicate average temperatures greater than the reference. The large spike
> at the end of the chart is intended to cause alarm due to a) it's large
> slope and b) the fact that it is fully 0.5 C above the average from the
> previous 30 years and well above the average for the past millenia.
"Intended to cause alarm?" That implies MOTIVE. Can you show that
the shart was drawn that way "to cause alarm" rather than to
conform to the data?
>
>
> >It looks to me like the error bars (in grey--if those are
> >not error bars I don't know what they are) are about +/-
> >.5 degree for observations prior to about 1600, perhaps +/-
> >.3 degrees from 1600 - 1900 and I won't hazard a guess as
> >to what they are in the more recent data.
> >
>
> Given that the grey bars are error bars, then the overall exercise and
> alarmism raised by the presentation of said chart are beyond simple
> hysterics and border on fraud.
How so?
Planning for the future should be based on predictions for the future
from Climate models that are validated by close fits to historical
data. You can't extrapolate by 'looking at' a plot, for any but the
simplest of linear models. I don't think climate models fall into
that category so I don't see how the chart in question fits into
the scientific debate.
> The blue and red lines are those focused
> upon the by the Chicken Little crowd. The error bars indicate that this
> entire exercise is attempting to extrapolate future climate from noise.
> Having spent the last 15 years of my career in various development projects
> that rely heavily upon integration and test and data collection, I can
> categorically state that attempting to extrapolate performance from noise
> measurements is a fool's errand.
That does't make any sense. How well the data fit the model over
the period of observation how one tests validity of a model. Not
how noisy it 'looks'. Very seldom can one look at a plot of real
world data and see somethign meaningful. The question one
needs to ask as a first step to deterimining the predictive value
of the model in question is how well it fits the data.
As you know, mathematically valid results may be extracted from data
that to the human eye, appear to be randomly distributed, even as
the human eye may 'see' trends in data where mathematics tells us
there are none.
>
>
> >So, what again is your objection? Do you feel the the variance
> >in the data prior to 1600 was underestimated? If so, what
> >do you allege has been mishandled in the error estimation?
> >
>
> That the error bars are only 0.5C is the first part that anyone with some
> degree of skepticism should focus upon.
As you know, whether or not the estimated uncertainties in the data
are correct can be objectively tested. So, have they been?
> The second is the deltas that are
> being extrapolated for periods before the advent of the thermometer are
> being assessed at less than 0.5C, when the exact causes for tree ring size,
> ice core sample depth, and other "indicators" are hardly precise enough to
> estimate global average temperature to such a degree of precision.
I do not see that the chart extrapolates any deltas anywhere.
The charts shows mean temperatures (still undefined) vs time.
As you know the standard deviation of a mean is inversely
proportionate to the square root of the number of observations
The size of the statistically correct error bars on any 'average'
can be made arbitrarily small simply by gathering enough
data.
>
> >What do you mean by "pegged at less than 0.5 C increments"?
> >
> >"Pegged" is usually used to mean a hard limit, for example met
> >sensor data showing relative humidity inexcess of 100% may be
> >arbitrarily adjusted to ("pegged" at) 100% at ingest, though
> >the term more often refers to a hard limit on the measurement
> >device itself (e.g. "pegging the meter").
> >
>
> Oh please, let's not play games with semantics, you know darned well what
> I meant,
Please do not lie about me. I am not playing games with semantics.
In Mathematics and Science words are carefully defined so as to
facilitate communication. When someone starts thowing them around
without regard to those defintions communincation is obstructed.
> i.e. that the error bars shown are at best 0.5C, the attempt to
> show increments of less than 0.1C are simply ludicrous.
If you claim the errors are underestimated, what is your basis?
Are his chi squares too small? Also consider that we are only
GUESSING that those are error bars and even if we are, we do not
know for what confidence interval. Still if you show your
arithmetic, I'll check it out.
Are you SERIOUSLY objecting to the _tic spacing_ on the vertical
axis? If so, you'd better be tough that is just as arbitrary as the
choice of origin.
BTW, by 'arbitrary' I mean 'has no effect on interpretation',
hence my comment regarding toughness.
> Substitute
> "represented", or "reported" for "pegged" if that makes you feel any
> better.
None of them do. Please explain what you mean, rather than play
games with semantics. Do you accuse the author of understimating
the uncertainty in his data? If so, show your evidence.
>
> >The only 0.5 degree C increments I see are the major tick spacing
> >on the vertical (temperature) axis. Again, like the choice of
> >origin, that is arbitrary.
> >
> >IOW, I don't see anything here to the effect of "that by measuring
> >tree ring size, one can determine the average temperature of an
> >area to within tenths of a degree is ludicrous."
> >
>
> Take a closer look a the graph, the numbers for the era before the
> thermometer was invented are being estimated based upon tree ring
> measurements, ice core samples and historical records (i.e, some current
> era literati writing, "dang, it's cold this winter!" or "We had to order 5
> more pairs of longjohns this winter"). Now, look at the blue lines, look
> at the zero reference line, this graph is trying to tell you that global
> average temperature was moving around 0.2 to 0.5C below the global average
> reference line.
The chart is not a claim by anyone "that by measuring tree ring size,
one can determine the average temperature of an area to within tenths
of a degree." THAT is obvious, just by looking at it. We don't
even know what each 'point' being plotted actually represents. It
is possible that each point on the chart is actually extracted from
its own database each with a large number of observations. As you
know the variance decreases in inverse proportion to the number of
data points. E.g. the chart may represent a so-called 'meta'
study, a examination of an ensemble of other persons' resuults,
treating their conclusions as data.
Why don't we know these things? Well for starters, we haven't
yet found anything written about this chart by the author, have
we?
I also don't believe any scientist basing predictions on future
climate on THAT chart. That's not the way scientist make pre-
dictions, especially about the future. That the chart gets
presented a lot, does not mean that anyone who knows a burro
from a burrow actually uses it for anything other than illustrative
purposes.
Do you claim that the chart is a fake, not supported by data?
If so, what is your evidence?
--
FF
On 3 Jul 2005 20:51:22 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>Mark & Juanita wrote:
>> On 3 Jul 2005 00:41:19 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Mark & Juanita wrote:
>> >> On 2 Jul 2005 21:57:11 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
... snip
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ... alright fred, present a credible source for how global temperature
>> >> change in tenths of a degree (which is the amount and rate being cited for
>> >> global warming evidence) can be identified for periods before accurate
>> >> weather records were kept.
>> >
>> >Why should I? You haven't presented any credible source indicating
>> >that anyone claims to be able to do so.
>> >
>>
>>
>> As you are so fond of saying, Google is your friend.
>
>My first response was snide and I've deleted it.
>
>What cuaght my eye was your statement "The idea that by measuring
>tree ring size, one can determine the average temperature of an
>area to within tenths of a degree is ludicrous."
>
>A quick google search using the search terms "tree ring" and "average
>temperature" does not yield anyoone making such a claim.
>
>So, I remain skeptical that such a claim has been made.
>
>
>> Try to hearken
>> back to various debates in which the infamous "hockey stick" chart is shown
>> that attempts to show departures from average temperatures in 1961 to 1990
>> for the years 1000 AD to current time, showing this sudden jump of +.5C
>> when the other tempertures were below. The difference is less than 0.5 C.
>> The "measurements" from tree rings, corrals, ice cores and "historical
>> records" (remember that no calibrated met stations existed in 1000 AD) are
>> all being pegged at less than 0.5 C increments.
>
>A Google search for "hockey stick chart" yields a few pages that come
>up 404, perhaps due ot the NHL strike, and a few that criticize
>"the hocky stick chart" but I haven't found any explanation of the
>chart itself.
>
>One example is found here:
>
>http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/wca/2004/wca_24c.html
>
>The chart appears to be a graph of temperature as a function
>of time. Note the caption on the left side which indicates
>the temperature origin is a "1961 to 1990 average." What is
>meant by "1961 to 1990 average" is a mystery to me but inasmuch
>as choice of origin is arbitrary let's not worry about
>that.
>
You have the correct chart. This is the chart that various ("Earth in
the Balance") former presidential candidates have used to highlight the
future devastation to be caused by the alarming increase in temperature in
only the past several years. The 1961 to 1990 average temperature was
taken as a baseline and is the zero bar of said chart. The numbers below
zero indicate average temperatures below the reference bar and those above
indicate average temperatures greater than the reference. The large spike
at the end of the chart is intended to cause alarm due to a) it's large
slope and b) the fact that it is fully 0.5 C above the average from the
previous 30 years and well above the average for the past millenia.
>It looks to me like the error bars (in grey--if those are
>not error bars I don't know what they are) are about +/-
>.5 degree for observations prior to about 1600, perhaps +/-
>.3 degrees from 1600 - 1900 and I won't hazard a guess as
>to what they are in the more recent data.
>
Given that the grey bars are error bars, then the overall exercise and
alarmism raised by the presentation of said chart are beyond simple
hysterics and border on fraud. The blue and red lines are those focused
upon the by the Chicken Little crowd. The error bars indicate that this
entire exercise is attempting to extrapolate future climate from noise.
Having spent the last 15 years of my career in various development projects
that rely heavily upon integration and test and data collection, I can
categorically state that attempting to extrapolate performance from noise
measurements is a fool's errand.
>So, what again is your objection? Do you feel the the variance
>in the data prior to 1600 was underestimated? If so, what
>do you allege has been mishandled in the error estimation?
>
That the error bars are only 0.5C is the first part that anyone with some
degree of skepticism should focus upon. The second is the deltas that are
being extrapolated for periods before the advent of the thermometer are
being assessed at less than 0.5C, when the exact causes for tree ring size,
ice core sample depth, and other "indicators" are hardly precise enough to
estimate global average temperature to such a degree of precision.
>What do you mean by "pegged at less than 0.5 C increments"?
>
>"Pegged" is usually used to mean a hard limit, for example met
>sensor data showing relative humidity inexcess of 100% may be
>arbitrarily adjusted to ("pegged" at) 100% at ingest, though
>the term more often refers to a hard limit on the measurement
>device itself (e.g. "pegging the meter").
>
Oh please, let's not play games with semantics, you know darned well what
I meant, i.e. that the error bars shown are at best 0.5C, the attempt to
show increments of less than 0.1C are simply ludicrous. Substitute
"represented", or "reported" for "pegged" if that makes you feel any
better.
>The only 0.5 degree C increments I see are the major tick spacing
>on the vertical (temperature) axis. Again, like the choice of
>origin, that is arbitrary.
>
>IOW, I don't see anything here to the effect of "that by measuring
>tree ring size, one can determine the average temperature of an
>area to within tenths of a degree is ludicrous."
>
Take a closer look a the graph, the numbers for the era before the
thermometer was invented are being estimated based upon tree ring
measurements, ice core samples and historical records (i.e, some current
era literati writing, "dang, it's cold this winter!" or "We had to order 5
more pairs of longjohns this winter"). Now, look at the blue lines, look
at the zero reference line, this graph is trying to tell you that global
average temperature was moving around 0.2 to 0.5C below the global average
reference line.
>If it is your intent to make another point, that point is lost
>on me.
>
>
The point is that this is the kind of evidence that is "widely accepted"
and "peer reviewed" and critically acclaimed as showing the coming
environmental disaster that is global warming. It is also the kind of
evidence to which people are referring when they say, "it has been proven
that global warming is occuring."
... snip
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>
> "Prometheus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > FORD New Focus 1560 D 70.6
> >
> > I sure hope so, considering the Ford dealership just sold me one.
> > Doesn't get 70 mpg, though. I've got 41 without A/C so far, though-
> > that's with the manual transmission and approximately 20% stop-and-go
> > city traffic. With the A/C on, it drops to about 32 mpg.
> >
>
> That's a big drop with AC. Both my cars have 3.8 liter engines and the
> difference is no more than 1 mpg. Neither gets 42 mpg and struggle to get
> 30 on all highway
I have no idea wha the hp of the Focus is, but the A/C load is much
larger fraction in comparison...
I've several GM 3.8L and a Chrysler 3.5L...they do similar, but the 3.5L
is in a 300M which is geared more "peppy" so doesn't do quite as well as
Mom's LeSabre for mileage, but is <much> more entertaining to drive...
:)
Dave Hinz wrote:
>
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 06:36:32 -0500, Prometheus <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 27 Jun 2005 15:25:25 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>Well, if it's going to be relevant when we're talking about a
> >>transportation device, yeah, it's kind of important.
> >>
> >>> VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 80.7
> >>> VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 80.7
> >>> CITROEN C1 1398 D 83.1
> >>> HONDA Insight 995 P/ E 94.2
> >>
> >>Would any of those pass USA'n crash tests?
> >
> > FORD New Focus 1560 D 70.6
> >
> > I sure hope so, considering the Ford dealership just sold me one.
> > Doesn't get 70 mpg, though. I've got 41 without A/C so far, though-
> > that's with the manual transmission and approximately 20% stop-and-go
> > city traffic. With the A/C on, it drops to about 32 mpg.
>
> So, why does this table show 70.6 and you see 41? Even the empirical
> vs. USA'n gallon size doesn't wash with the numbers.
>
> >
> >
The tests are simply that--tests. What bearing they have on actual
driving results is minimal, at best. Their only value imo is to compare
gross differences between themselves, but in most cases that is
self-evident anyway. Miniscule differences between models, otoh, while
perhaps "statistically significant" in the scope of the test, will be
completely overshadowed by the difference in conditions between the test
environment and actual usage.
Prometheus wrote:
>
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 10:04:45 -0500, Duane Bozarth
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> >>
> >> "Prometheus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> > FORD New Focus 1560 D 70.6
> >> >
> >> > I sure hope so, considering the Ford dealership just sold me one.
> >> > Doesn't get 70 mpg, though. I've got 41 without A/C so far, though-
> >> > that's with the manual transmission and approximately 20% stop-and-go
> >> > city traffic. With the A/C on, it drops to about 32 mpg.
> >> >
> >>
> >> That's a big drop with AC. Both my cars have 3.8 liter engines and the
> >> difference is no more than 1 mpg. Neither gets 42 mpg and struggle to get
> >> 30 on all highway
> >
> >I have no idea wha the hp of the Focus is, but the A/C load is much
> >larger fraction in comparison...
>
> HP is not extremely high (I want to say it's 180 off the top of my
> head, but that could be wrong), but it is pretty zippy- 0-60 in 7.2
> seconds, which is enough for me. Engine is a 2.0L Mazda.
If it's that high, I agree the drop ascribed is excessive due to
compressor load...
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Duane Bozarth wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > Ethanol is better deal to date...
> > > > >
> > > > > Made from corn? I have been wondering if it would not be better to
> > > > > use sorghum, which grows well over much of the same range as corn,
> > > > > for producing the sugar used to make ethanol.
> > > >
> > > > Primarily corn, yes. Sorghum doesn't have nearly the sugar content of
> > > > corn and nowhere nor the yield/acre.
> > >
> > > I gather that the suagar/acre ration is lower for sorghum. I'm
> > > not surprised that the corn kernals have a higher concentration
> > > of sugar than the sorghum stalks but am surpised that there is
> > > more sugar in the whole corn plant, than in the whole sorghum plant.
> > > When corn is raised for ethanol production, do they squeeze the
> > > whole plant, rather than just the kernals?
> >
> > No, the grain is the feedstock, not the plant...the grain must ripen to
> > achiece maximum energy content (and as a secondary necessity, must be
> > dry enough to be handled and stored w/o danger of mold damage and
> > spontaneous combustion) and at that time the sugars in the foliage are
> > largely used up.
>
> I'm surprised ther eis more sugar in corn kernals than in the entire
> sorghum plant. I'm not clear on why the grain is stored at all. It
> seems ot me it would be more efficient to continuously process it
> as it is harvested and just tank the jiuce. E.g. make the 'squeezer'
> part of the combine.
>
> ...
It isn't "squeezed", it's fermented (in essence). It also is required
simply for logistics--to have a continuous process, one must have
feedstock continuously--harvest comes only in a short period.
> >
> > As for central station generation, the switch from coal to
> > petroleum-fired was a major mistake as well was the abandonment of
> > nuclear which <should> be the predominant form of central station
> > generation.
>
> How much electricity is generated from petroleum here in the US today?
>
> When I was in the industry it was all but nil. Coal was tops, followed
> by hydro and nuclear (not sure of the order) and those three accounted
> at least 90% of the electricity generated in the US.
OTTOMH I'm not sure of the total fraction but it is now a measurable
fraction--the Clinton/Gore-era paranoia against coal caused a shift to
natural gas. Plus, siting issues made any other construction extremely
difficult and so there was a plethora of gas-fired turbines installed
for fast reserve generation and a lot of these then ended up as being
needed.
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Duane Bozarth wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > Ethanol is better deal to date...
> > > > >
> > > > > Made from corn? I have been wondering if it would not be better to
> > > > > use sorghum, which grows well over much of the same range as corn,
> > > > > for producing the sugar used to make ethanol.
> > > >
> > > > Primarily corn, yes. Sorghum doesn't have nearly the sugar content of
> > > > corn and nowhere nor the yield/acre.
> > >
> > > I gather that the suagar/acre ration is lower for sorghum. I'm
> > > not surprised that the corn kernals have a higher concentration
> > > of sugar than the sorghum stalks but am surpised that there is
> > > more sugar in the whole corn plant, than in the whole sorghum plant.
> > > When corn is raised for ethanol production, do they squeeze the
> > > whole plant, rather than just the kernals?
> >
> > No, the grain is the feedstock, not the plant...the grain must ripen to
> > achiece maximum energy content (and as a secondary necessity, must be
> > dry enough to be handled and stored w/o danger of mold damage and
> > spontaneous combustion) and at that time the sugars in the foliage are
> > largely used up.
>
> I'm surprised ther eis more sugar in corn kernals than in the entire
> sorghum plant. I'm not clear on why the grain is stored at all. It
> seems ot me it would be more efficient to continuously process it
> as it is harvested and just tank the jiuce. E.g. make the 'squeezer'
> part of the combine.
I've done some more looking specifically wrt to grain sorghum as
feedstock vis a vis corn and discover my perceptions were based on my
past knowledge regarding feed value more than current state of ethanol
production. In an summary assessment done by a KSU researcher, the
difference in grain feedstock is actually nearly immaterial to the
overall NEV and only a factor economically based on the actual
price--grain sorghum w/ it's historic discount as opposed to corn is
actually somewhat of a benefit. The major difference (and what confused
me) in NEV between, say, 1995 and present is <not> nearly as much
attributable to the feedstock as it is essentially all owing to
enhancements in the process itself.
What is apparently a limiting factor for ethanol may well be how to
generate sufficient market for the byproducts which are necessary to be
sold in order to make the profitability of the producing plants. The
distillers grains are feed for livestock but it appears there may become
a point at which there can not be sufficient demand for all that would
be produced.
George wrote:
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > after the sugars have been fermented into alcohol, what's left is
> > mostly cellulose, right?
> >
> > make it into MDF.
>
> Cellulose is sugar. Breaking it up might be useful.
I think there is where the NEV would go negative...but I've not looked
into the chemical process balance in depth as yet.
"George E. Cawthon" wrote:
>
> Duane Bozarth wrote:
> > George wrote:
> >
> >><[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >>>
> >>>after the sugars have been fermented into alcohol, what's left is
> >>>mostly cellulose, right?
> >>>
> >>>make it into MDF.
> >>
> >>Cellulose is sugar. Breaking it up might be useful.
> >
> >
> > I think there is where the NEV would go negative...but I've not looked
> > into the chemical process balance in depth as yet.
>
> The easiest way to break up the cellulose is to
> feed it to cows. Nothing negative to that; the
> cows make it into milk or beefsteak.
That is what is done w/ it at present--the suggestion was to process it
further chemically as part of the ethanol extraction process--and <that>
process is what would be more energy in than additional out.
As noted earlier, it's likely in my estimation that a limiting factor in
the economics of biofuels will be the saturation of markets for the
secondary products unless major new/additional usages can be
created/found.
George wrote:
>
> "Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > > >>
> > > >>Cellulose is sugar. Breaking it up might be useful.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think there is where the NEV would go negative...but I've not looked
> > > > into the chemical process balance in depth as yet.
> > >
> > > The easiest way to break up the cellulose is to
> > > feed it to cows. Nothing negative to that; the
> > > cows make it into milk or beefsteak.
> >
> > That is what is done w/ it at present--the suggestion was to process it
> > further chemically as part of the ethanol extraction process--and <that>
> > process is what would be more energy in than additional out.
> >
> > As noted earlier, it's likely in my estimation that a limiting factor in
> > the economics of biofuels will be the saturation of markets for the
> > secondary products unless major new/additional usages can be
> > created/found.
>
> Well, no. Suggestion of digestion by the same bacteria that fill the gut of
> the ungulates to yield methane would be more appropriate.
That would be called a "cow"... :)
Sorry, I misinterpreted your first suggestion...
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>>If it were true, don't you think the manufacturers would have figured out
>>how to do it and make money on the process? This smells like the infamous
>>Fish carburetor of long ago. You know, the one that got 50-60 mpg as a
>>bolt-on.
>>Bob
>
>
> Hey, it works, When I added the water injector from JC Whitney, my mileage
> went up to 70 mpg. They I added that fan thingies under the carb, plus a
> special ingredient in the gas tank and I'm getting 82 mpg on a regular
> basis. I can't wait for the Fire Ring spark plugs to get here. My goal is
> to top 100 mpg.
>
>
Be careful, if you put too many of these add-ons on the same car you'll
start making gas and the EPA will be all over you for polluting the
environment when it overflows the tank anywhere near a wetlands. or a
puddle of standing water.
Joe
>>> Any competent rebuilder should have the ability to dissasemble
>>> virtually any battery pack and rebuild it...there are at least two
>>> independent ones in Wichita I've used. Everything from early-death
>>> drill packs to antique HP calculators.
>>
>> Somehow I don't think this is what the OP had in mind. The eBay scam
>> looks more like a magic pill than a competent rebuild.
>
> True, I was just referring to the subthread complaint about a particular
> shop somewhere that was unable (or at least unwilling) to tackle a
> welded-plastic b-pack...
It could also be the Ol' "reverse zap" method. Using a 12v car battery, zap
the NiCad for a split-second with the polarity reversed. ie. +ve cable to
+ve terminal on car-battery *and* NiCAD, -ve to -ve. I zap 'em two or three
times, with pauses in-between to ensure nothing over-heats.
I've done this several times with NiCads that were past their prime, and it
works, ort of. About 1/4 of the NiCads I've done to date recovered and
worked well for a while, about another 1/4 recharged OK once or twice then
turned toes up again and the rest stayed parrots.
As they were cactus dominictus anyway, I wasn't concerned about damaging
'em *but* I've learned a thing or two since then and have stopped doing it.
Damaging the car battery is a very real possibilty... so are exploding
NiCads. Be warned, it ain't worth it.
--
- Andy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Another great idea from the man who brought you Beer Milkshakes!
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
In my part of Wisconsin, no-till is just getting to be common in the
> family farm setting. So things move slow. Like I said, it's not that
> they're ignorant of it, they're just chosing not to use it in some
> cases.
In northern climes there often isn't enough useful rotting time for low or
no till to be effective. Depending on the next crop, it is often best to
turn it under.
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 07:01:32 -0400, George <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
>
>
> No-till around here usually involves round-up or similar. Same where
> you are? I suppose it kills the old whatever, while giving it more time
> to decompose while the next crop is growing.
>
>
Kills the weeds. Rolling it under used to reduce them enough to allow the
crop to sprout and defend itself. Still, it's tough to use a cultipacker
with corn stubble in place.
"Prometheus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 30 Jun 2005 15:04:28 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 06:36:32 -0500, Prometheus <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >> On 27 Jun 2005 15:25:25 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Well, if it's going to be relevant when we're talking about a
> >>>transportation device, yeah, it's kind of important.
> >>>
> >>>> VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 80.7
> >>>> VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 80.7
> >>>> CITROEN C1 1398 D 83.1
> >>>> HONDA Insight 995 P/ E 94.2
> >>>
> >>>Would any of those pass USA'n crash tests?
> >>
> >> FORD New Focus 1560 D 70.6
> >>
> >> I sure hope so, considering the Ford dealership just sold me one.
> >> Doesn't get 70 mpg, though. I've got 41 without A/C so far, though-
> >> that's with the manual transmission and approximately 20% stop-and-go
> >> city traffic. With the A/C on, it drops to about 32 mpg.
> >
> >So, why does this table show 70.6 and you see 41? Even the empirical
> >vs. USA'n gallon size doesn't wash with the numbers.
>
> That's a good question- the mfg sticker claims 35-51 hwy mpg. I have
> no idea where the table came from in the first place. Could be they
> used some kind of test that had nothing to do with real-world
> conditions.
71 km = 44 miles
Sorta makes you wonder?
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> after the sugars have been fermented into alcohol, what's left is
> mostly cellulose, right?
>
> make it into MDF.
Cellulose is sugar. Breaking it up might be useful.
"Duane Bozarth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > >>
> > >>Cellulose is sugar. Breaking it up might be useful.
> > >
> > >
> > > I think there is where the NEV would go negative...but I've not looked
> > > into the chemical process balance in depth as yet.
> >
> > The easiest way to break up the cellulose is to
> > feed it to cows. Nothing negative to that; the
> > cows make it into milk or beefsteak.
>
> That is what is done w/ it at present--the suggestion was to process it
> further chemically as part of the ethanol extraction process--and <that>
> process is what would be more energy in than additional out.
>
> As noted earlier, it's likely in my estimation that a limiting factor in
> the economics of biofuels will be the saturation of markets for the
> secondary products unless major new/additional usages can be
> created/found.
Well, no. Suggestion of digestion by the same bacteria that fill the gut of
the ungulates to yield methane would be more appropriate.
Greetings and Salutation...
On 30 Jun 2005 15:36:49 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 30 Jun 2005 11:05:23 -0400, Roy Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Edwin Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> That's a big drop with AC. Both my cars have 3.8 liter engines and the
>>> difference is no more than 1 mpg. Neither gets 42 mpg and struggle to get
>>> 30 on all highway
>>
>> I believe most cars get better mileage on the highway with the AC
>> turned on and the windows closed than with the AC off and the windows
>> open. The added aerodynamic drag introduced by opening the windows is
>> worse than turning the AC on.
>
>Mythbusters just did this one, actually. Two identical vehicles, one
>with AC on, the other with the windows open. It was a Ford Expedition,
>which is hardly an example of an aerodynamic, efficient vehicle, but
>they found that the one with the A/C ran out of gas first, by a few
>percent. I don't have exact numbers, but google might.
>
>This might be vastly different with a more aerodynamic vehicle, where
>the aerodynamic change made by opening the windows takes it from "good"
>to "bad", rather than from "bad" to "more bad".
>
>Way I look at it, I'll run the A/C and be a bit more comfortable, either
>way.
Yea, I saw that episode, and, I think that the BIG issue there
was that they were driving at a fairly low speed. They were limited
to 45 MPH, and, at that rate, I am not sure that the drag would make
a difference. It ALSO might well have been the vehicles. I recall
a sedan from some years ago that got about 15% better gasoline mileage
when driving at interstate speeds, with the A/C on. This was kind
of surprising to me, but, we ran several cycles of testing over tanks
of gasoline, and, it was quite consistant.
Another factor is that the blast of wind through the windows
can be PRETTY irritating after a bit...I much prefer the low hum of
the A/C fans.
Regards
Dave Mundt
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Moreover fuel does not account for all the petroleum used. Petroleum
> is the single most important feedstock for organic chemicals like
> virtually all synthetic fabrics, plastics and solvents.
>
> Your arithmetic is quite sobering.
IMHO, the only thing that will solve the oil shortage problem is economics.
$10/gal gasoline would bring lots of new technology out of the wood
work, but as long as the fossil fuel industry is in control of US energy
policy and their stooge occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Av, there will be no
meaningful solutions brought forward.
Lew
[email protected] wrote:
>How much electricity is generated from petroleum here in the US today?
>
>When I was in the industry it was all but nil. Coal was tops, followed
>by hydro and nuclear (not sure of the order) and those three accounted
>at least 90% of the electricity generated in the US.
Natural Gas is now a large component.
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
The carborator was real and did work. The rumor mill distorted the claims.
It did do what it was claimed by the the manufacturer to do.
"Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Gene T wrote:
> > Has anyone been brave enough to pay for info on how to "revive" cordless
> > toll batteries that no longer hold a charge?
> > This guy is selling this "info" On Ebay for $12.95 and has a 99.7%
feedback.
> > Can this be true?
> >
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=632&item=4389110247&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW
> > Gene
>
> If it were true, don't you think the manufacturers would have figured
> out how to do it and make money on the process? This smells like the
> infamous Fish carburetor of long ago. You know, the one that got 50-60
> mpg as a bolt-on.
> Bob
>>>Hey, it works, When I added the water injector from JC Whitney, my
>>>mileage went up to 70 mpg. They I added that fan thingies under the
>>>carb, plus a special ingredient in the gas tank and I'm getting 82 mpg
>>>on a regular basis. I can't wait for the Fire Ring spark plugs to get
>>>here. My goal is to top 100 mpg.
Funny thing - Following a recent engine swap, I've suddenly got a wonky
speedo, which is of course making the odometer less than reliable. I filled
up the tank the other day, and checked the mileage. A quick bit of math led
to around 84 MPG. That's one goddamn fine engine I put in there! :)
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>>If it were true, don't you think the manufacturers would have figured out
>>how to do it and make money on the process? This smells like the infamous
>>Fish carburetor of long ago. You know, the one that got 50-60 mpg as a
>>bolt-on.
>>Bob
>
>
> Hey, it works, When I added the water injector from JC Whitney, my mileage
> went up to 70 mpg. They I added that fan thingies under the carb, plus a
> special ingredient in the gas tank and I'm getting 82 mpg on a regular
> basis. I can't wait for the Fire Ring spark plugs to get here. My goal is
> to top 100 mpg.
>
>
Ed,Ed,Ed...
You've forgotten the pills that turn gas into water.
Sort of a reverse Jesus with a half gainer.
Bob
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 13:34:51 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> If it were true, don't you think the manufacturers would have figured out
>> how to do it and make money on the process? This smells like the infamous
>> Fish carburetor of long ago. You know, the one that got 50-60 mpg as a
>> bolt-on.
>> Bob
>
>Hey, it works, When I added the water injector from JC Whitney, my mileage
>went up to 70 mpg. They I added that fan thingies under the carb, plus a
>special ingredient in the gas tank and I'm getting 82 mpg on a regular
>basis. I can't wait for the Fire Ring spark plugs to get here. My goal is
>to top 100 mpg.
>
Hey, you keep adding stuff like that, eventually you are going to have to
stop every several miles and siphon off some gas so the tank doesn't
overflow. :-)
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
In article <[email protected]>, Juergen Hannappel <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>> Here in America, we do not share the belief that there are any
>> limits.
>
>That is well known and bitterly grieved over by the rest of the world
>which has to suffer the consequences.
>
You know, it really pisses me off to hear western Europeans whining about
America.
Where the hell would you have been in the 1940s, without America's belief that
there are no limits? This nation came out of the worst economy of modern times
and built a massive military machine _from_scratch_ to free your sorry asses
from a dictator that you weren't able to get rid of on your own(and in the
case of your nation specifically, weren't *willing* to get rid of), because we
knew it was the right thing to do - and because of our persistent belief that
We Can. We don't ever see any limits, and instead of "bitterly griev[ing]"
that you should be on your knees giving thanks for six decades of freedom that
you owe *solely* to the United States.
Who do you suppose it was that kept you free *after* the war ended? It sure as
hell wasn't your *own* armies that kept the Soviets out. Yes, we screwed up at
Yalta, and abandoned eastern Europe, to our shame. But if it hadn't been for
the American military, and American nuclear weapons [I bet that'll *really*
get your panties twisted in a knot, but it's true], the Iron Curtain would've
been at the Atlantic Ocean instead of in the middle of the continent.
And this is the thanks we get.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On 2 Jul 2005 21:57:11 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >
> ... snip
> >This is the sort of nonsense one reads from junk scientists. There
> >is no doubt that humans have an effect on Global Climate. The issue
> >in controversy is the magnitude and direction.
> >
> >Typical of the junk scientist is a tendency to try to reduce all
> >questions as a dichotomy and to claim (contary to fact) that
> >statistics can determine which answer is correct.
> >
> >...
> >
> >>
> >> The global warming hysteria is a prime example. The idea that by
> >> measuring tree ring size, one can determine the average temperature of an
> >> area to within tenths of a degree is ludicrous, yet this is one of the bits
> >> of evidence being used to show how average temperature is increasing
> >> compared to several centuries in the past.
> >
> >In general I tend to doubt stories presented without references.
> >In the instant case this sounds like it might be a misrepresentation
> >of some published work by a junk scientist (like Malloy) who most
> >likely didn't understand it in the first place.
>
>
> ... alright fred, present a credible source for how global temperature
> change in tenths of a degree (which is the amount and rate being cited for
> global warming evidence) can be identified for periods before accurate
> weather records were kept.
Why should I? You haven't presented any credible source indicating
that anyone claims to be able to do so.
> ...
> Unfortunately peer reviewed journals aren't what they once were.
Regardless, letters to the editor for the Washinton Post remain pretty
much what they always were, eh?
> ... This does not seem to be true today; statistical correlation
> techniques are often substituted for root-cause phenomenological analysis.
You can show this some way?
> Finally, the other thing missing is identifying causality; even when long
> term trends are identified, showing that human activity is the cause for
> said phenomena has thus far been highly speculative. To derail an entire
> culture on such speculative evidence should make people question the
> underlying motives of those demanding such actions. Again, note that I am
> not saying that human activity cannot mess up local environments; ample
> evidence for this exists. However, scaling that evidence to a global scale
> is far from a proven fact.
>
Non sequitor.
Any local effect IS part of a global effect. As tricial example, if
you raise the temperature of a city by one degree, that has an effect
on a 'global average temperature.' The issue is the magnitude
and direction of the cumulative global effects.
--
FF
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 08:36:08 -0700, nospambob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Acid rain killing lakes on the East coast doesn't seem to be
> >imaginary.
> >
>
> I believe that in some of my other postings I indicated that there is no
> doubt that one can screw up one's local environment and that conclusive
> evidence for this exists.
I believe you are the first person I have ever heard suggest that
acid rain produced by polution local to the rainfall in question.
If I am mistaken about this, please elaborate a bit on what
you think is causing acidic rain in the Northeastern US.
-- FF
George wrote:
> "Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 08:36:08 -0700, nospambob <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >Acid rain killing lakes on the East coast doesn't seem to be
> > >imaginary.
> > >
>
> If, on the other hand, we allowed the forests to burn once in a while, like
> they did of old, we'd sweeten those granite-bottomed lakes. Instead we have
> acid pine needles and black water.
1) Fire was never common or widespread over large areas in the
Eastern US the way it is in some other parts of the world.
Succession was more often set back by beaver and ice storms.
2) Much of the forst surrounding the lakes to which OP referred is
Deciduous.
But I do agree that more of the forest should be left for Mother
Nature to manage. But she does have a lot of management tools
besides fire.
--
FF
George wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > 1) Fire was never common or widespread over large areas in the
> > Eastern US the way it is in some other parts of the world.
> > Succession was more often set back by beaver and ice storms.
>
> Well, you might want to check on those Amerinds. They saw the value of a
> meadow in feeding large ungulates which fed them.
Indeed. But those were small localized fires. Drought is rare
in the East. Shade from the canopy kept temperatures on the
forest floor humidity high and suppressed understory growth
so that dead wood on the ground went from green timber to a
sopping wet sponge usually without passing through a stage of
ydryness that would promote fire.
An area recently denuded by an ice storm would allow the sun in
to dry the fallen wood and allow the understory to grow
>
> You must have gone to other places in the uplands than I. There the
> combination of latitude and altitude gave a boreal forest. Or peat bogs,
> which is pretty acid.
Yes, it would take a lot of potash to neutralize a peat bog.
Don't know where the uplands are, but have spent a fair bit of time
in New England. The conifers there are mostly at the highest
elevations, while down near the lakes decidious trees are more common.
Deciduous trees also seem to be faster to colonize open space.
Almost of the wooded land East of the Mississippi is second growth
dating back to the early 20th century.
Were it not for silviculture, there would be a LOT fewer conifers in
the Eastern US.
I'm not clear on where the uplands are.
--
FF
"Mark & Juanita" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 08:36:08 -0700, nospambob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Acid rain killing lakes on the East coast doesn't seem to be
> >imaginary.
> >
If, on the other hand, we allowed the forests to burn once in a while, like
they did of old, we'd sweeten those granite-bottomed lakes. Instead we have
acid pine needles and black water.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 1) Fire was never common or widespread over large areas in the
> Eastern US the way it is in some other parts of the world.
> Succession was more often set back by beaver and ice storms.
Well, you might want to check on those Amerinds. They saw the value of a
meadow in feeding large ungulates which fed them.
You must have gone to other places in the uplands than I. There the
combination of latitude and altitude gave a boreal forest. Or peat bogs,
which is pretty acid.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Again, note that I am
> not saying that human activity cannot mess up local environments; ample
> evidence for this exists. However, scaling that evidence to a global scale
> is far from a proven fact.
>
I think that the scientific community is pretty heavily (95% vs 5% ??)
on the side of human causation of at least a great deal of the global
warming.
But you're right, there is no absolute proof. But can we afford to wait
till there is?
And it is pretty well established that human produced CFCs are
responsible for the loss of some of the protective ozone layer. That's
pretty global :-).
--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 08:36:08 -0700, nospambob <[email protected]> wrote:
>Acid rain killing lakes on the East coast doesn't seem to be
>imaginary.
>
I believe that in some of my other postings I indicated that there is no
doubt that one can screw up one's local environment and that conclusive
evidence for this exists.
>On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 11:05:56 -0700, Mark & Juanita
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>There are very few places on the Earth that aren't
>>>directly altered by human beings, and while one person using an
>>>aerosol can isn't going to a darn thing to the ecology, 6 billion of
>>>us doing it sure can.
>>>
>>
>> Evidence that if enough people say the same thing often enough and loud
>>enough, people will buy into it, even if the evidence is shaky at best.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On 2 Jul 2005 21:57:11 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
... snip
>This is the sort of nonsense one reads from junk scientists. There
>is no doubt that humans have an effect on Global Climate. The issue
>in controversy is the magnitude and direction.
>
>Typical of the junk scientist is a tendency to try to reduce all
>questions as a dichotomy and to claim (contary to fact) that
>statistics can determine which answer is correct.
>
>...
>
>>
>> The global warming hysteria is a prime example. The idea that by
>> measuring tree ring size, one can determine the average temperature of an
>> area to within tenths of a degree is ludicrous, yet this is one of the bits
>> of evidence being used to show how average temperature is increasing
>> compared to several centuries in the past.
>
>In general I tend to doubt stories presented without references.
>In the instant case this sounds like it might be a misrepresentation
>of some published work by a junk scientist (like Malloy) who most
>likely didn't understand it in the first place.
... alright fred, present a credible source for how global temperature
change in tenths of a degree (which is the amount and rate being cited for
global warming evidence) can be identified for periods before accurate
weather records were kept. Deconvolve any other potential causes for the
evidence so cited such as cyclical rain cycles and other climate phenomena.
Unfortunately peer reviewed journals aren't what they once were. In the
past, peer reviewed journals meant that the peer reviewers questioned
assumptions, required substantiating experiments and repeatability in
measurements. This does not seem to be true today; statistical correlation
techniques are often substituted for root-cause phenomenological analysis.
Finally, the other thing missing is identifying causality; even when long
term trends are identified, showing that human activity is the cause for
said phenomena has thus far been highly speculative. To derail an entire
culture on such speculative evidence should make people question the
underlying motives of those demanding such actions. Again, note that I am
not saying that human activity cannot mess up local environments; ample
evidence for this exists. However, scaling that evidence to a global scale
is far from a proven fact.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Note followups. Please remove rec.woodworking from follow-ups.
Larry Jaques wrote:
> On 5 Jul 2005 15:51:36 -0700, the opaque [email protected]
> clearly wrote:
>
> >Larry Jaques wrote:
> >> Graph range has been used to hide data more than once, bubba.
> >
> >Sure, had the authore chosen a range from, say -100 C to + 100 C the
> >chart would be inscrutable.
>
> <frown> Oh, never mind. <big sigh>
Uh, what is bothering you? If you think some feature of the chart
was selected to deceive, why not point it out instead of making
ambiguous general statements that don't look to be relevant
to THIS particular plot?
>
>
> >As it is, the range appears tobe
> >chosen as any sensible person would, to fit the data on the page
> >within comfortable margins.
> >
> >BTW, why'd you change the subject from tic-spacing to range? Perhaps
> >you DO realize the tic spacing is arbitrary, just like the choice
> >of origin?
>
> Would the range of the chart on a page be the same with smaller
> increments,
No, that's why I don;t understand how you sent from 'increments'
to range, eithout explaining what aspect of either you though had
been jiggered deceptively.
> Fred? I didn't change the subject, you merely found a
> way to argue semantics. But, hey, if you want to Chicken Little it,
> feel free. Gotcher tinfoil headgear?
Perhaps you can make a criticism that addresses specific features
of the plot so somebody other than yourself can tell WTF it is to
which you refer?
Is your opinion is the range too large or too small?
Which and why? What range do you think would be proper?
To what 'increments' do you refer, and what 'increment size'
do you think would be proper?
>
> --snip--
>
> >If instead, their criticism is that the tic spacing on a graph
> >is too close, well, that conclusion is left as an exercise for
> >the reader.
>
> One of many criticisms. EOF, bubba.
>
THAT one is plainly meaningless. How about some others?
--
FF
Note followups. Please remove rec.woodworking from the distribution.
Executive summary: I'm skeptical that hte "hockey stick" plot
has any predictive value. But if it does, that will be totally
dominated by the most recent data, temperatures a hundred
years ago or more are all but irrelevant.
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On 5 Jul 2005 15:51:36 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Larry Jaques wrote:
> >> On 4 Jul 2005 12:01:09 -0700, the opaque [email protected]
> >> clearly wrote:
> >>
> >> >Larry Jaques wrote:
> >> >> "How can we make our point with so little data to go on? Aha, make the
> >> >> increments so small the data (with which we want to scare folks) is
> >> >> off the charts!" Oh, and "Let's estimate data about 10x longer than
> >> >> we have ANY data for.)
> >> >
> >> >SPLORF! I realize that is not your only criticism but it is hilarious
> >> >that you would base ANY criticism on the tic spacing on the temeprature
> >> >axis. If they spaced the tics 10 degrees apart the plot would look the
> >> >same, it would just be harder to convert the picture to numbers.
> >>
> >> Graph range has been used to hide data more than once, bubba.
> >
> >Sure, had the authore chosen a range from, say -100 C to + 100 C the
> >chart would be inscrutable. As it is, the range appears tobe
> >chosen as any sensible person would, to fit the data on the page
> >within comfortable margins.
> >
> >BTW, why'd you change the subject from tic-spacing to range? Perhaps
> >you DO realize the tic spacing is arbitrary, just like the choice
> >of origin?
> >
>
> When the @#$% was the subject ever tic spacing?
When Larry Jaques wrote:
"How can we make our point with so little data
to go on? Aha, make the increments so small
the data (with which we want to scare folks) is
off the charts!"
I thought he was referring to the tic spacing as 'increments'.
If not, perhaps he or you could identify at least one (1) such
'increment' such as by showing me the endopints.
> The issue is the
> represented data and the range of the data that is based upon very gross
> observables being used to predict global average temperature fluctuations
> based upon ice core samples, tree ring size, and contemporary cultural
> documentation going back the past millennia. Those gross measurements
> (again, which could be influenced by more than just temperature) were then
> used to compute numbers with very small predicted increments. The
> precision presented is not the precision that one would expect from such
> gross measures. Had you explored the web site at which you found the
> chart, you would have found that this was a conclusion from a paper by Mann
> in 1998 that used the data that was summarized in that chart to predict
> future global warming.
No I would not have found that because
that website was not written by Mann.
If I want to know what Bush said in
his state of the Union Message I go
to www.whitehouse.gov, not moveon.org.
If I want to know what Mann says about
the plot, I'll consult HIS writing.
> The paper by Mann is one of the keystones of the
> global warming adherents (not just a dog and pony show chart). The chart
> is simply a summary of the Mann's "research" and conclusions.
A chart that is simply a summary
of someone's research and conclusions
is, by definiton, a dog and pony
show style chart. Furthermore,
if any chart is a keystone in the
argument for Global Warming it
is this:
http://www.oar.noaa.gov/organization/backgrounders/cmdl_2.gif
from
http://www.oar.noaa.gov/organization/backgrounders/cmdl.html
> There are
> numerous objections to Mann's methods and his refusal to turn over *all*
> of his data or algorithms <http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=234>
> despite being funded by the NSF.
Nothing there appears to have
been posted by Mann.
Data destruction is a serious
problem that pervades scientific
society today. Obviously there
is good reason to keep data
proprietary to the reasercher
for a reasonable period of time.
For the HST, that is ten years.
But scientists (civil servants)
working in Geophysics for NASA
and NOAAA, typically keep their
data proprietary forever and may
(often do) deliberately destroy
it after their papers are published.
Of course there is no honest
rational reason to destroy data
once the researcher is through
with his own analysis and publication.
No benefit accrues to the individual
researcher, to science or to humanity
from that destruction. The downside
is obvious, opportunity to learn
more from the data is lost. The upside
is completely nonexistant. Yet that
appalling practice persists.
As for his algorithms, the algorithms
ARE the science, if he didn't publish
his algorithms, he didn't publish anything
of value.
This, er discussion, reminds me of
something written by Tolkien
in his forward to _The Lord of the
Rings_: "Some who have read the
book, or at any rate have reviewed
it, have found it to be..."
Tolkien understood that some people
would not let a minor detail like not
having read something interfere with
their criticism and support of it. I
can't find Mann's own description of
the plot online so *I* do not know what
it is meant to portray. I'll
take a couple of educated guesses below.
> Further, problems with his methodology
> are documented in <http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/2003%20October.htm#bathtub>
> as well as other areas on the site. He deliberately omitted data that
> corresponded to a midiaeval warm period, thus making his predictions for
> the future look like the largest jump in history.
The anonymous author(s) of that
webpage have not released their data
either, have they? Keeping that
in mind, let's take a look at the
"hockey stick" graph and compare
it to the "bathtub graph".
The data may be divided into three
ranges based on the error bar size.
The first range, on the left, has
the largest error bars, roughly
plus/minus 0.5 degrees abd extebds
from c AD 1000 to c AD 1625.
The second range extends from circa
AD 1625 to c AD 1920 and looks to
have error bars of about 0.3 degrees.
The third region, beginning c AD 1920
and extending to the present time
looks to have error bars of maybe 0.1
degree. Actually there is fourth region,
appearing to the right of AD 2000 that
does not appear to have any error bars
at all. That defies explanation since
it post-dates the publication of the
paper and were it a prediction, one
would expect uncertainties in the predicted
temperatures to be plotted long with
the predicted temperatures temselves.
It also seems reasonable to presume that
the most recent data are by far the most numerous
and those on the extreme left, the most sparse.
I think that one of your criticisms
is that the error bars toward the
left of the chart are too small.
Now, maybe the plot just shows data
after some degree of processing. For
example, each point may represent a
ten-year arithmetic mean of all the
temperature data within that decade,
each point could be a running boxcar
average through the data and so on.
I realy don't know but probably, due
to the data density, each point represents
more than a single observation. E.g.
it is a 'meta' plot. If so the error
bars may simply be standard plus/minus
two sigmas of the standard deviation
to those means. If so, the
the size of the error bars will scale
in inverse proportion to the square root
of the sample size.
That last is not opinion or deception.
That is simple statistical fact. Whether or
not the error bars are the right size (and keep
in mind, we don't even know if they ARE two-sigma)
is a matter than can ONLY be definiteively
settled by arithmetic though people who have
experience with similar data sets may be able
to take an educated guess based on analogy alone.
Of course if my GUESS about what is being plotted
is wrong that may also be totally irrelevant.
But supposing this is a plot of his data
set with the errors bars established by the
numerical precision within the data themelves.
A least squares fit
will be dominated by the data that are most
numerous and those with the lowest uncertainties.
ANY model fitted to those data will be
dominated by the data in the third region to the
extent that data in the second region will only have
a minor effect and those in the first region
may have a negligible efect.
So since the data that are numerous and precise are
the data from the third range, which show a rapid rise
in temperature, ANY model that is fitted to those data
will be dominated by the characteristics of that
data range. Given the steep upward slope of the data
in that third region it is hard to imagine how,
underestimating the errors in the earlier data would
actually reduce the estimated future temperature rise
extrapolated from that model.
What if the data out in that earlier flat region were
biased? What if they really should be lower or higher?
Again, that would have little effect on a madel fitted
to the entire data range for precisely the same reasons.
So, what if the 'bathtub' plot data are more accurate?
They still will surely lack the precision and density of
the modern data and so still will have little effect on
any model parameters fitted to the data set.
To the untrained eye, the 'bathtub' plot looks VERY
different from the 'hockey stick' plot but both
would produce a similar result when fitting a model
that includes the third data range.
Finally, there is a useful statistical
parameter called the reduced chi square
of the fit to the model that is indicative
of whether or not errors none's data have
been estimated properly. Simply stated,
if the have, the value will be near
unity. If they have not, the value will
be above or below unity depending on whether
the uncertainties were over or underestimated.
Gregor Mendel, long after his death, was first
accused of culling his data, then exhonerated
on the basis of statistics drawn from his data.
(Note, this was only possible because his data
were saved, not destroyed) The key mistake made
by his critic was over-estimating the degrees
of freedom.
> Again, even if this
> chart was only for consumption by politicians and policy makers, it was a
> deliberately distorted conclusion
How is the _chart_ a conclusion? If you refer
to the points to the right of AD 2000 as a
conclusion, how do you show they are not
properly extrapolated from the model?
> that could only be intended to engender a
> specific response regarding global warming. In order to get his infamous
> 2.5C temperature rise prediction, he used trend of the numbers to pad the
> data fit rather than padding with the mean of the data. (again documented
> on the numberwatch page).
Documented how? I can't even find the _word_ "pad" on that
page?
What the hell do
"used trend of the numbers to pad the data"
and
"padding with the mean of the data."
mean? What the hell is "padding"?
What the page actually tells us
(it doesn't document THAT either
it tells us) is that another
climatologists, Hans von Storch
et all (HVS) using their own model
obtained results that differerd
from Mann, but those differences
were less pronounced if noise
were added to the HVS model.
As the numberwatch author notes,
as more noise is added the
long term variability in the
data is reduced. One is inclined
to say "Doh!" Adding noise
ALWAYS reduces any measure of
variablilty in a data set.
Mann's data set may exhibit less
noise becuase he has more data,
or maybe he also added noise into
his analysis to bring his reduced
chi squares to unity. He ought to
say if he did, and for all I know,
maybe he did.
>
> >> Here
> >> they go the opposite direction to support falsehoods and hysteria.
> >
> >The graph in question looks to me to have been prepared for some
> >sort of dog and pony show. If it was created by a climatologist
> >in the first place, I'll bet it was created to show to reporters
> >and politicians (and also bet that they didn't understand it anyways.)
> >
>
> ... and if it was so created, it was created in order to drive a specific
> conclusion and input to direct public policy. That is not a trivial, wave
> your hands and dismiss-it kind of action. The politicians who used it
> certainly understood the conclusions that Mann was trying to assert. The
> fact that he omitted the medieval warm period further indicates that this
> was not a harmless use of the data from an innocent scientist.
As noted above, data from medieval
times are not going to affect a fit to a
model unless, contrary to reason, they
are weighted equally with the modern
data that are far more numerous and
undoubtably more accurate.
>
>
> >It has been over a decade since I last attended a coloquium given
> >by a climatologist. At that time predictions were being made based
> >on climate models--not by looking at a graph and imagining it extended
> >beyond the right margin.
> >
>
> Where do you think that climatologists get the bases for their climate
> models? Where do you think they get data that they can use to fine-tune
> those models and validate them?
Why do you ask those questions? You indicated you already
know the answers. All I am saying is that the question of
whetehr or not the exisiting data base is large and precise
engough to jsutify a prediction is a mathematical question.
A criticism of the prediction without math is just blowing
smoke, no better than a predition make without any mathmatical
modeling.
>
>
>
> >For example, this fellow (sorry I do not remember his name) explained
> >that one of the objections to a Kyoto type agreement (this was
> >before Kyoto) came about because some models predicted that average
> >annual rainfall in Siberia would decrease over about the next fifty
> >years but then increase over the following 100. So the Soviets
> >(this was back when there were still Soviets) were concerned about
> >not stabilizing global change at a time when Siberia was near the
> >dryest part of the expected changes.
> >
>
> So, since it's been over a decade, were their models correct?
Irrelevant. The point is that a simple linear regression does
not have inflection points.
...
>
>
> >Note also that Siberia getting drier for fifty years and then
> >getting wetter for a hunderd years after is a nonlinear change.
> >The prediction was not being made by simply extending a plot.
> >
>
> No, it was made by running a computer model. Do you know what goes into
> computer models and simulations? Do you have any idea how much data and
> effort is required to get a computer model to make predictions that are
> reliable?
Yes. I 'turn the crank' every day and
twice on Sundays on data sets
that include tens of thousands
of observations for medium precision
orbit determination and similar
work. We emphatically do not determine
where a satellite will be tomorrow
by simply extrapolating from where
it was today.
> I do; as I mentioned before, I've been involved in the area of
> development, and integration & test for a considerable time. I know how
> difficult it is to get a model to generate accurate predictions even when I
> have control of a significant proportion of the test environment. To
> believe that climatologists have the ability to generate models that
> predict the future performance of such a complex system as the Earth's
> climate yet cannot predict even short term with any significant degree of
> accuracy is a stretch of epic proportions to say the least.
Nature presents numerous examples
where short-term variablity
obscures long-term trends. Take
geodetic measurements for example.
The long term movement over thousands
of years can be readily
determied by geological data, but
that long term movement is
punctuated with short-term seismic
events that, over the time
frame of an hour are orders of
magnitude larger making the short-term
prediction completely wrong.
Solar astronmers can better predict
the average sunspot number over
the next year than they can for
a dya three dyas from now.
A weatherman can better predict
annual rainfall for next year than
he can how much it will rain next week.
My physical condition a hundred years
from now is much easier to predict
than my physical condition ten years from now.
There are many areas in nature in
which short-term prediction due to
variability is far more difficult
than the long term.
Let's go back to the cornerstone
of global warming, the atmospheric
Carbon Dioxide data. The temperature
of a body is constant when the rate
at which it loses energy is the same
as the rate at which it receives energy.
The three largest sources of energy
for the Earth, by far, are radioactive
decay, dissipationnof tidal energy,
and insolation. We have no significant
influence on the first two. There
are but two significant ways the Earth
loses energy, tidal dissipation and
radiative cooling. Again, we have
no influence on the former.
We have no influence on the natural
variation in the solar 'constant'.
But direct sampling of the
atmosphere makes it clear beyond
all doubt that we can influence
the Earth's albedo. We can, and
do change the balance in the
radiative transfer of energy
between the Earth and the rest of
the Universe. There is no question
that the short term effect
meaning over a century or so,
of the introduction of more
greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere
will be a temperature rise, absent
other confounding factors.
That is predicted not by any
climate model but by the law
of the conservation of energy.
There may be confounding factors
that will counteract that temperature
rise. But unless it can be demonstrated
that there are such
factors and they are countering the
effect of greenhouse gasses it
is not a question of if we can
observe the change. It is a question
only of how soon we will be able to.
It won't shock me if we cannot see
a trend yet. That non-observation
will not disprove the law of the
conservation of energy. Wht remains
crucial is determining the magnitude
of _other_ influences on Global
Temperature and how the Earth
responds to all of them.
...
>
> People who think that climatologists who generate such charts are not
> attempting to influence policy and opinion are
> 1) Not very honest
> 2) Not very bright
> 3) Have mislead themselves into believing that said climatologists are
> simply objective scientists publishing reduced graphs that are being used
> for purposes that they did not envision.
What would their motive be?
>
> That Mann does not fall under the title of naive scientist can be found
> in <http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20030825-090130-5881r.htm>
>
Your commentary is at least as impressive as
any commentary read in the Washington Times.
Hell, you probably at least know some math and
science, I'm less than confident of the same
for the editorial staff of the Washington Times.
>
>
> >I've never worked on a Climate model but have no doubt that
> >Climatologists rely on tried and true statistical methods
> >to fit data to their models and to made predictions from
> >those models just like any other scientist.
> >
>
> Very well, and where are these climatologists getting *their* data to
> validate their models? Generating models is easy, generating models that
> produce accurate results is not.
You've indicated a variety of sources yourself, so why ask?
>
> >If they underestimate the uncertainties in their data, or
> >overestimate the degrees of freedom in their models their
> >reduced chi-squares will be too small, just like they were
> >when Gregor Mendel's data were fitted to his theory. (Not
> >by Mendel himself, he didn't do chi squares). While Mendel's
> >theory of genetics overestimated the degrees of freedom, his
> >data fit modern genetic theory quite well.
> >
> >If someone has a scientifically valid theory, they will have
> >the math to support it. The same is true for a scientifically
> >valid criticism of a theory.
> >
>
> Statistics does *not* make the math for a model. Statistics can be used
> to validate the precision, or distribution of outcomes of a model run in a
> Monte-Carlo sense, comparing the dispersion of the monte-carlo runs to the
> dispersion of real data, but that assumes one has sufficient real data with
> which to perform such a comparison and that the diversity of the variables
> being modified in the model are sufficiently represented in the data set to
> which the model is being compared.
If one's real data are insuficent in quality
or qwuantity this will result
in large uncertainties in the predictions.
> If all one is relying upon to predict
> future events is past data being statistically processed, one has done
> nothing beyond glorified curve fitting and extrapolation beyond the data
> set.
I quite agree. Of Course, I have no idea if that is what Mann
did, or not.
> The real math behind models and simulations should be the
> first-principals physics and chemistry that are properly applied to the
> problem being modeled. Therein lies the rub, there are so many variables
> and degrees of freedom (in a true modeling definition of that phrase), that
> validating the first principals models to the degree that one could trust a
> model to predict future climate changes is, at this time, insufficient.
Agreed.
>
> >If instead, their criticism is that the tic spacing on a graph
> >is too close, well, that conclusion is left as an exercise for
> >the reader.
>
> Your statement above indicates that either you don't get it, or are being
> deliberately obtuse regarding the referenced paper and the infamous "hockey
> stick" chart. Think of it this way, the chart shown is the equivalent to
> the final output from one of your revered climatologist's models that
> predicts global average temperature will increase by 2.5C per decade
I have no revered climatologists. You earlier referred to the
chart as a plot of DATA, now you call it 'equivalent to the final
output...' I don't see how data input to a model can be considered
equivalent to the outpur from a model.
As I said before, I haven't read the paper. It appears that neither
have you.
--
FF
On 5 Jul 2005 15:51:36 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On 4 Jul 2005 12:01:09 -0700, the opaque [email protected]
>> clearly wrote:
>>
>> >Larry Jaques wrote:
>> >> "How can we make our point with so little data to go on? Aha, make the
>> >> increments so small the data (with which we want to scare folks) is
>> >> off the charts!" Oh, and "Let's estimate data about 10x longer than
>> >> we have ANY data for.)
>> >
>> >SPLORF! I realize that is not your only criticism but it is hilarious
>> >that you would base ANY criticism on the tic spacing on the temeprature
>> >axis. If they spaced the tics 10 degrees apart the plot would look the
>> >same, it would just be harder to convert the picture to numbers.
>>
>> Graph range has been used to hide data more than once, bubba.
>
>Sure, had the authore chosen a range from, say -100 C to + 100 C the
>chart would be inscrutable. As it is, the range appears tobe
>chosen as any sensible person would, to fit the data on the page
>within comfortable margins.
>
>BTW, why'd you change the subject from tic-spacing to range? Perhaps
>you DO realize the tic spacing is arbitrary, just like the choice
>of origin?
>
When the @#$% was the subject ever tic spacing? The issue is the
represented data and the range of the data that is based upon very gross
observables being used to predict global average temperature fluctuations
based upon ice core samples, tree ring size, and contemporary cultural
documentation going back the past millennia. Those gross measurements
(again, which could be influenced by more than just temperature) were then
used to compute numbers with very small predicted increments. The
precision presented is not the precision that one would expect from such
gross measures. Had you explored the web site at which you found the
chart, you would have found that this was a conclusion from a paper by Mann
in 1998 that used the data that was summarized in that chart to predict
future global warming. The paper by Mann is one of the keystones of the
global warming adherents (not just a dog and pony show chart). The chart
is simply a summary of the Mann's "research" and conclusions. There are
numerous objections to Mann's methods and his refusal to turn over *all*
of his data or algorithms <http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=234>
despite being funded by the NSF. Further, problems with his methodology
are documented in <http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/2003%20October.htm#bathtub>
as well as other areas on the site. He deliberately omitted data that
corresponded to a midiaeval warm period, thus making his predictions for
the future look like the largest jump in history. Again, even if this
chart was only for consumption by politicians and policy makers, it was a
deliberately distorted conclusion that could only be intended to engender a
specific response regarding global warming. In order to get his infamous
2.5C temperature rise prediction, he used trend of the numbers to pad the
data fit rather than padding with the mean of the data. (again documented
on the numberwatch page).
>> Here
>> they go the opposite direction to support falsehoods and hysteria.
>
>The graph in question looks to me to have bene prepared for some
>sort of dog and pony show. If it was created by a climatologist
>in the first place, I'll bet it was created to show to reporters
>and politicians (and also bet that they didn't understand it anyways.)
>
... and if it was so created, it was created in order to drive a specific
conclusion and input to direct public policy. That is not a trivial, wave
your hands and dismiss-it kind of action. The politicians who used it
certainly understood the conclusions that Mann was trying to assert. The
fact that he omitted the medieval warm period further indicates that this
was not a harmless use of the data from an innocent scientist.
>It has been over a decade since I last attended a coloquium given
>by a climatologist. At that time predictions were being made based
>on climate models--not by looking at a graph and imagining it extended
>beyond the right margin.
>
Where do you think that climatologists get the bases for their climate
models? Where do you think they get data that they can use to fine-tune
those models and validate them?
>For example, this fellow (sorry I do not remember his name) explained
>that one of the objections to a Kyoto type agreement (this was
>before Kyoto) came about because some models predicted that average
>annual rainfall in Siberia would decrease over about the next fifty
>years but then increase over the following 100. So the Soviets
>(this was back when there were still Soviets) were concerned about
>not stabilizing global change at a time when Siberia was near the
>dryest part of the expected changes.
>
So, since it's been over a decade, were their models correct? Has
rainfall in Siberia been decreasing? From a quick perusal of the web, it
appears that significant flooding has occurred in Siberia in recent years
due to heavy rains as well as spring melt.
>Note also that Siberia getting drier for fifty years and then
>getting wetter for a hunderd years after is a nonlinear change.
>The prediction was not being made by simply extending a plot.
>
No, it was made by running a computer model. Do you know what goes into
computer models and simulations? Do you have any idea how much data and
effort is required to get a computer model to make predictions that are
reliable? I do; as I mentioned before, I've been involved in the area of
development, and integration & test for a considerable time. I know how
difficult it is to get a model to generate accurate predictions even when I
have control of a significant proportion of the test environment. To
believe that climatologists have the ability to generate models that
predict the future performance of such a complex system as the Earth's
climate yet cannot predict even short term with any significant degree of
accuracy is a stretch of epic proportions to say the least.
>People who write as if the predictions made by climatologists
>are based on extrapolating from dog and pony show style visual
>aids are:
>
>1) Not very honest.
>or
>2) Not very bright.
>or
>3) Have been misled by people fitting 1) and/or 2) above.
>
People who think that climatologists who generate such charts are not
attempting to influence policy and opinion are
1) Not very honest
2) Not very bright
3) Have mislead themselves into believing that said climatologists are
simply objective scientists publishing reduced graphs that are being used
for purposes that they did not envision.
That Mann does not fall under the title of naive scientist can be found
in <http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20030825-090130-5881r.htm>
>I've never worked on a Climate model but have no doubt that
>Climatologists rely on tried and true statistical methods
>to fit data to their models and to made predictions from
>those models just like any other scientist.
>
Very well, and where are these climatologists getting *their* data to
validate their models? Generating models is easy, generating models that
produce accurate results is not.
>If they underestimate the uncertainties in their data, or
>overestimate the degrees of freedom in their models their
>reduced chi-squares will be too small, just like they were
>when Gregor Mendel's data were fitted to his theory. (Not
>by Mendel himself, he didn't do chi squares). While Mendel's
>theory of genetics overestimated the degrees of freedom, his
>data fit modern genetic theory quite well.
>
>If someone has a scientifically valid theory, they will have
>the math to support it. The same is true for a scientifically
>valid criticism of a theory.
>
Statistics does *not* make the math for a model. Statistics can be used
to validate the precision, or distribution of outcomes of a model run in a
Monte-Carlo sense, comparing the dispersion of the monte-carlo runs to the
dispersion of real data, but that assumes one has sufficient real data with
which to perform such a comparison and that the diversity of the variables
being modified in the model are sufficiently represented in the data set to
which the model is being compared. If all one is relying upon to predict
future events is past data being statistically processed, one has done
nothing beyond glorified curve fitting and extrapolation beyond the data
set. The real math behind models and simulations should be the
first-principals physics and chemistry that are properly applied to the
problem being modeled. Therein lies the rub, there are so many variables
and degrees of freedom (in a true modeling definition of that phrase), that
validating the first principals models to the degree that one could trust a
model to predict future climate changes is, at this time, insufficient.
Using such models in making public policy that can have devastating
economical effects upon peoples' lives would be a travesty. Finally, even
given that you have climatalogical models that have some degree of
precision, there is still the pesky problem of proving that human activity
is to blame for the phenomena being observed as root cause changes to the
future climate predictions.
>If instead, their criticism is that the tic spacing on a graph
>is too close, well, that conclusion is left as an exercise for
>the reader.
Your statement above indicates that either you don't get it, or are being
deliberately obtuse regarding the referenced paper and the infamous "hockey
stick" chart. Think of it this way, the chart shown is the equivalent to
the final output from one of your revered climatologist's models that
predicts global average temperature will increase by 2.5C per decade
(Mann's original paper apparently stated 1C per decade, but the number was
later revised to 2.5C). This is the equivalent to your climatologists'
model prediction that rain in Siberia would decrease over the next 50
years, then increase over the next 100.
Fred, this is my last post on this subject, as it is clear that a) you
really don't get it and b) for all of your feigned objectivity and previous
comments upon how you take an objective view of all sides and then look at
the available, data; you have shown that you look at that data only from a
particular worldview. You are welcome to the last word, I have better
things to do with my time.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On 5 Jul 2005 15:51:36 -0700, the opaque [email protected]
clearly wrote:
>Larry Jaques wrote:
>> Graph range has been used to hide data more than once, bubba.
>
>Sure, had the authore chosen a range from, say -100 C to + 100 C the
>chart would be inscrutable.
<frown> Oh, never mind. <big sigh>
>As it is, the range appears tobe
>chosen as any sensible person would, to fit the data on the page
>within comfortable margins.
>
>BTW, why'd you change the subject from tic-spacing to range? Perhaps
>you DO realize the tic spacing is arbitrary, just like the choice
>of origin?
Would the range of the chart on a page be the same with smaller
increments, Fred? I didn't change the subject, you merely found a
way to argue semantics. But, hey, if you want to Chicken Little it,
feel free. Gotcher tinfoil headgear?
--snip--
>If instead, their criticism is that the tic spacing on a graph
>is too close, well, that conclusion is left as an exercise for
>the reader.
One of many criticisms. EOF, bubba.
-
Better Living Through Denial
------------
http://diversify.com Dynamic Websites, PHP Apps, MySQL databases
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Michael Houghton) wrote:
>
>The response from the seller sounds a lot like he is trying to sell you
>dehydrated water.
Note that the response I posted was not from the seller, but from one of the
*buyers*.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
When the show was an interview with the inventor of the thing (yes, he was
there in the studio), it has a lot to do with it. I'm sure you would rather
the government spend a few million dollars on research and publish a report
for you to read but I doubt that's going to happen. Now, go make a pointy
stick and fall on it.
"Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> CW wrote:
>
> What does the above radios show citation have to do with the Fish
> carburetor?
Patrick Conroy wrote:
> "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:%Tyue.2304$Z97.520@trndny06:
>
>
>>Hey, it works, When I added the water injector from JC Whitney, my
>>mileage went up to 70 mpg. They I added that fan thingies under the
>>carb, plus a special ingredient in the gas tank and I'm getting 82 mpg
>>on a regular basis. I can't wait for the Fire Ring spark plugs to get
>>here. My goal is to top 100 mpg.
>
>
> What about that magnet thingy that "aligns" the gasoline molecules for more
> MPG!?!?!
>
>
>
> Oh oh... Here come the black helicopters...
Be very careful with this one. I installed one backwards by mistake and
my MPG decreased by 35%. Called J.C. Whitney and they straightened me
out. Said to either R&R the magnet properly or drive backwards to
achieve the higher MPG
In article <7mBxe.4128$kM5.1510@trndny05>, "Tim and Steph" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Funny thing - Following a recent engine swap, I've suddenly got a wonky
>speedo, which is of course making the odometer less than reliable. I filled
>up the tank the other day, and checked the mileage. A quick bit of math led
>to around 84 MPG. That's one goddamn fine engine I put in there! :)
Swap the transmission too? Kinda hard to see how an engine swap alone could do
that... easy if you changed the tranny as well.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
CW wrote:
> You want something in print, you'll have to dig it up yourself. About a year
> ago, there was an interview, on a radio talk show, with the maker of the
> carburetor that had so much BS behind it. It was not represented as a "100
> hundred mile per gallon" conversion. It wouldn't really improve anything on
> a standard passenger car. It was intended for the RV market, where engines
> were under a heavy load. The difference was the spraybar. It forced
> atomization instead of relying on airflow as in a regular carb. This
> improved combustion efficiency. The improvement was not earth shattering but
> was there. The host of the show had heard all of these wild claims that were
> going around and, wanting to get the real story, tracked this guy down. The
> conspiracy theorists said that the oil companies bought this guy out, had
> him killed, ect. Not at all true. The reason that he ceased production was
> due to the advent of fuel injection. It was more efficient than any
> carburetor.
>
>
>
"> I was quite ready to discuss the myths and realities of this (the
realities
> you are obviously unaware of) but you immidiatly took your prick stance. In
> that case, go fuck yourself."
What does the above radios show citation have to do with the Fish
carburetor? If you're going to make claims, you'll have to provide proof
yourself. Why should I have to do it for you?
Bob
Duane Bozarth (in [email protected]) said:
| Morris Dovey wrote:
| ....
|| We can expect that as the cost of fuel rises, more and more land
|| will be given over to ethanol production - and other crops will be
|| sacrificed until a (shifting) economic balance is achieved. Soybean
|| derivatives (everything from livestock feed to plastics) will
|| become sharply more expensive.
|
|| If the pressures to maximize ethanol production are sufficiently
|| high, we face the danger of taking a giant step backward to
|| repetitively planting the same crop on the same land until the
|| soil is exhausted. Should we get to that point, there will be
|| serious breakage - and the worst of it won't be in the corn belt.
|
| I think you overestimate this scenario extensively...for one thing,
| at present there are millions of acres of formerly-producing crop
| ground in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) that could, <IF>
| (that's the "big if" :) ) it were necessary and economical, be
| brought back into production for many of these ancillary crops as
| well as corn and soybeans. As for land "exhaustion", if there is
| any segment that is concerned w/ maintaining productivity of the
| land, it is we producers--after all, that is our <direct>
| livelihood, not indirect.
You're right, the scenario I presented assumed no major scientific
breakthrough - and a prolonged "emergency" (as defined by folks in
DC.)
The really sad scenario would be removing control of the land from
those who have a sense of stewardship in favor of management by larger
("more efficient") organizations who aren't able to do much of
anything well except make campaign contributions.
The Supreme Court's recent decision in the Connecticut condemnation
case provides precedent for other cases that *will* affect family
farms. The only questions are how many farms, and where, and for what
purpose...
"National security interests" appears to have become a buzz phrase to
justify even the most outrageous behavior. These days it even trumps
principles like "due process".
I wish I shared your confidence and optimism.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html
Patrick Conroy wrote:
> "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:%Tyue.2304$Z97.520@trndny06:
>
>> Hey, it works, When I added the water injector from JC Whitney, my
>> mileage went up to 70 mpg. They I added that fan thingies under the
>> carb, plus a special ingredient in the gas tank and I'm getting 82
>> mpg on a regular basis. I can't wait for the Fire Ring spark plugs
>> to get here. My goal is to top 100 mpg.
>
> What about that magnet thingy that "aligns" the gasoline molecules
> for more MPG!?!?!
They switched to curing arthritis.
--
dadiOH
____________________________
dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
Nice to have an calm exchange of viewpoints. Asking for proof isn't
being a prick.
Bob
CW wrote:
> I was quite ready to discuss the myths and realities of this (the realities
> you are obviously unaware of) but you immidiatly took your prick stance. In
> that case, go fuck yourself.
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 00:48:03 GMT, CW <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>The carborator was real and did work. The rumor mill distorted the
>
> claims.
>
>>>It did do what it was claimed by the the manufacturer to do.
>>
>>Please provide a credible cite for this. We'll get into the chemical
>>limitations once you do that. "I heard a guy say a friend of a friend
>>said" isn't a cite, by the way.
>>
>
>
>
Resurrection? Is this the "Second Coming"?
Seems over the top and awfully pretentious. What procedure for TRYING
to save a bad battery pack warrants a patent? When I've had bad battery
packs, I've found dead cells. There's no hocus pocus that's gonna bring
those dead cells back to life.
Was it PT Barnum that said...?
Any chance the "feedback" is bogus?
Even if Doug gets an email back, why couldn't it be coming from a shill?
Dave
AAvK wrote:
> I emailed the owner and asked:
>
> Hello Rick, just to let you know, your auction for the battery technique
> is being discussed in rec.woodworking... You could pop in there and
> explain it as a genuine way to save memory choked batteries if you want,
> but if what you are selling is merely a link to site that shows a way to
> connect wires in a specific way and it works, do you think it is really
> worth $12.95? --(me)
> ----
> His answer:
>
> I am the president of Unique Dynamics, Inc. that has copyright and patent
> rights to the process. The best way to determine if the process is worth the
> money is to read the ebay feedback and the testimonials.
>
> http://resurrection.uniquedynamics.com/
> ----
>
> So, if one "buys it" they get a URL and a password to the instructions. I
> assume they can be copied, if not then a screen capture program can be used,
> or the whole page saved to disc.
>
> The one single negative feedback he's got is funny. But I really don't think
> it is a big deal to risk and try it out. personally I do not use ccordless power
> tools unless it is a skil twist, which needs a new battery.
>
Patrick Conroy says...
> What about that magnet thingy that "aligns" the gasoline molecules for more
> MPG!?!?!
>
>
>
> Oh oh... Here come the black helicopters...
I once picked up a hitchhiker who claimed he knew of a guy who bought a
prototype Chrysler that got 80mpg. Then some guys found him and took
the car back. You see, the oil companies buy up all the patents for
high mileage innovations so they never see the light of day. He was the
most clean-cut and rational of all the three or four hitchhikers I ever
picked up. I stopped picking up hitchhikers before my 17th birthday
some twenty years ago.
Upscale says...
> One of them bite you? Are you telling me that at the tender age of 18, you
> wouldn't have stopped for some hitchhiking cute woman in a short skirt?
Never saw any. By that time both hitchhiking and picking them up was,
well, let's say out of fashion. I believe I saw one in Raleigh trying
to hitch a ride on the beltway once. I wanted to pick her up, but
mainly because I wanted to ask her if she had lost her mind.
In article <[email protected]>, Juergen Hannappel <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>>
>> I prefer a society in which everyone's standard of living improves.
>
>So would I if I thought it were possible. But consider that the
>standard of living cannot be measured by material wealth alone.
I never said that it was.
>> Capitalism has proven to be a remarkably effective tool for doing just that.
>
>As long as growth rates were high enough so that there was much to
>distribute. With growth run into it's limits the gap between rich and
>poor will open ever farther.
You are proceeding from a mistaken assumption. You observe economic stagnation
in Europe, and assume that it is the result of economic growth having
encountered a natural limit of some kind, when in fact the stagnation is the
direct, and entirely predictable, result of socialism. Here in America, we do
not share the belief that there are any limits.
>
>> Compare modern Europe to feudal Europe for an example.
>
>Today with no formal division between a well of nobility and a
>rightless population but rather a graduation of differences with the
>lure of everyone hope to get richer personaly there is less chance of
>a revolution than at the end of feudal reign.
And with good reason, I'd say.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 05:28:45 -0500, Prometheus <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> More a Steve Malloy fan <www.junkscience.com>
Splorf! I 'discoverd' Malloy back when I was working support for
one of the TOMS missions. At the time he was 'debunking' ozone
studies published in peer-reviewed journals citing letters to
the editors from newspapers.
'Just scientist' he is, no doubt of that.
...
>
> Steve Malloy presents some pretty objective evidence that while global
> climate change may be occurring (as it always has, the global climate has
> never been in steady state); it is highly questionable that the change is
> due to human causes.
This is the sort of nonsense one reads from junk scientists. There
is no doubt that humans have an effect on Global Climate. The issue
in controversy is the magnitude and direction.
Typical of the junk scientist is a tendency to try to reduce all
questions as a dichotomy and to claim (contary to fact) that
statistics can determine which answer is correct.
...
>
> The global warming hysteria is a prime example. The idea that by
> measuring tree ring size, one can determine the average temperature of an
> area to within tenths of a degree is ludicrous, yet this is one of the bits
> of evidence being used to show how average temperature is increasing
> compared to several centuries in the past.
In general I tend to doubt stories presented without references.
In the instant case this sounds like it might be a misrepresentation
of some published work by a junk scientist (like Malloy) who most
likely didn't understand it in the first place.
--
FF
On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 17:11:53 -0700, Larry Jaques
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>On 4 Jul 2005 12:01:09 -0700, the opaque [email protected]
>clearly wrote:
>
>>Larry Jaques wrote:
>>> "How can we make our point with so little data to go on? Aha, make the
>>> increments so small the data (with which we want to scare folks) is
>>> off the charts!" Oh, and "Let's estimate data about 10x longer than
>>> we have ANY data for.)
>>
... snip
>
>>> Recommendation for Chicken Littles: Read Michael Crichton's book
>>> "State of Fear" for both a great story and an excellent reference
>>> work with detailed bibliography for further research. It will give
>>> you a whole new perspective, I guarantee!
>>
>>Fiction or non-Fiction?
>
>Fiction, but he states up front that ALL the data supplied is real and
>he supports that with references in the back of the book, including
>books, websites, published paper references, etc. If you think the
>world is melting and we're all gonna die, I strongly suggest you read
>that book tomorrow. Here are a couple links:
>
>http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ghcn/ghcn.html
>http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
>The data for Punta Arenas (the closest station to Antarctica) shows a
>mean 0.5C drop in temps between 1888 and 2005. It's getting COLDER!
><http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=304859340004&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1>
>
>
Having read some of the news regarding the G8 summit, as well as some of
various accounts on <www.numberwatch.co.uk>, a rather interesting premise
for a science fiction story struck me. When you look at what the UK and
some of the other European nations are attempting to get Bush to agree to
regarding agreements regarding global climate change, he is not being asked
to ascribe to a political agreement backed by strong science so much as he
is being asked to sign a doctrinal statement agreeing that he and his
country "believe" in global warming and that humans are the cause for this
impending disaster. Couple that with the proposal by the UK to cut its CO2
emissions by 60% over the next decade, and to issue all citizens a "carbon
allowance" as well as the various little "sacrifices" the citizenry is
being asked to perform, many said sacrifices having no real impact upon
overall energy use, (for example, unplugging the VCR rather than letting it
run in standby mode) but getting the citizenry to "buy into doing their
part". An interesting plot for a time in the future when the world is
dominated by the green religion whose high priests regulate the lives of
the average citizens who have been reduced to living in hovels and living a
pre-industrial lifestyle. The high priests of the religion live in
sparkling compounds, high on the hills and who possess all manner of
"magic" with which to assure compliance of the peasants with their lot in
life. Various rituals are practiced by which the average people are
indoctrinated with the knowledge that they are only a blight upon the
planet and that only by following the will of the Green Priests will they
be granted suffrance by the planet to live out their lives in quiet
submission and meager consumption.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 05:28:45 -0500, Prometheus <[email protected]>
wrote:
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>[email protected] says...
>>> As far as the view that "this small planet" is desperately impacted by
>>> the actions of those within it; this seems to be hubris of a high order.
>>> Can one mess up one's local environment? Absolutely, 19'th century London
>>> is a prime example of that, as are some of our own industrial cities at the
>>> beginning of the industrial revolution. Can we "destroy the planet"? That
>>> is highly debateable; consider the amount of energy and pollution that just
>>> *one* volcanic explosion can produce compared to the output of an
>>> industrialized nation.
>
>Ah, a Rush Limbagh fan.
More a Steve Malloy fan <www.junkscience.com>
> Can we destroy the planet? Probably not- but
>I've no doubt that we can make it a rather unpleasant place to live.
>I used to buy the line about global warming being junk science, but
>it's a little late in the game to keep pretending it isn't there- go
>watch the weather channel for a bit- the climate has changed quite a
>bit already.
Steve Malloy presents some pretty objective evidence that while global
climate change may be occurring (as it always has, the global climate has
never been in steady state); it is highly questionable that the change is
due to human causes.
>There are very few places on the Earth that aren't
>directly altered by human beings, and while one person using an
>aerosol can isn't going to a darn thing to the ecology, 6 billion of
>us doing it sure can.
>
Evidence that if enough people say the same thing often enough and loud
enough, people will buy into it, even if the evidence is shaky at best.
The global warming hysteria is a prime example. The idea that by
measuring tree ring size, one can determine the average temperature of an
area to within tenths of a degree is ludicrous, yet this is one of the bits
of evidence being used to show how average temperature is increasing
compared to several centuries in the past.
>While we may not destroy the planet, or render it absolutely sterile,
>it's certainly possible that we can make it a worse place to live.
>That's reason enough to think about using resources sensibly. It may
>not take that much dramatic change on the part of every person to make
>a huge difference to the whole. We're still going to need oil, we're
>still going to have to cut down trees- it's not like we should all go
>back to living in caves and riding on horseback or any of that
>nonsense, but there is certainly room for admitting that something is
>happening and working towards a reasonable solution.
I don't disagree with taking care of things, particularly if for no other
reason than to keep our local environment pleasant. However, the strident
extreme is what is being heard, and often acted upon -- that side will
settle for nothing less than an absolute halt to future development and
desires reversal of a significant portion of our current way of life (for
everybody but themselves of course -- the "enlightened ones" must maintain
their standard of living to assure that the rest of us peons are behaving
appropriately).
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Larry Jaques wrote:
> On 4 Jul 2005 12:01:09 -0700, the opaque [email protected]
> clearly wrote:
>
> >Larry Jaques wrote:
> >> "How can we make our point with so little data to go on? Aha, make the
> >> increments so small the data (with which we want to scare folks) is
> >> off the charts!" Oh, and "Let's estimate data about 10x longer than
> >> we have ANY data for.)
> >
> >SPLORF! I realize that is not your only criticism but it is hilarious
> >that you would base ANY criticism on the tic spacing on the temeprature
> >axis. If they spaced the tics 10 degrees apart the plot would look the
> >same, it would just be harder to convert the picture to numbers.
>
> Graph range has been used to hide data more than once, bubba.
Sure, had the authore chosen a range from, say -100 C to + 100 C the
chart would be inscrutable. As it is, the range appears tobe
chosen as any sensible person would, to fit the data on the page
within comfortable margins.
BTW, why'd you change the subject from tic-spacing to range? Perhaps
you DO realize the tic spacing is arbitrary, just like the choice
of origin?
> Here
> they go the opposite direction to support falsehoods and hysteria.
The graph in question looks to me to have bene prepared for some
sort of dog and pony show. If it was created by a climatologist
in the first place, I'll bet it was created to show to reporters
and politicians (and also bet that they didn't understand it anyways.)
It has been over a decade since I last attended a coloquium given
by a climatologist. At that time predictions were being made based
on climate models--not by looking at a graph and imagining it extended
beyond the right margin.
For example, this fellow (sorry I do not remember his name) explained
that one of the objections to a Kyoto type agreement (this was
before Kyoto) came about because some models predicted that average
annual rainfall in Siberia would decrease over about the next fifty
years but then increase over the following 100. So the Soviets
(this was back when there were still Soviets) were concerned about
not stabilizing global change at a time when Siberia was near the
dryest part of the expected changes.
Note also that Siberia getting drier for fifty years and then
getting wetter for a hunderd years after is a nonlinear change.
The prediction was not being made by simply extending a plot.
People who write as if the predictions made by climatologists
are based on extrapolating from dog and pony show style visual
aids are:
1) Not very honest.
or
2) Not very bright.
or
3) Have been misled by people fitting 1) and/or 2) above.
I've never worked on a Climate model but have no doubt that
Climatologists rely on tried and true statistical methods
to fit data to their models and to made predictions from
those models just like any other scientist.
If they underestimate the uncertainties in their data, or
overestimate the degrees of freedom in their models their
reduced chi-squares will be too small, just like they were
when Gregor Mendel's data were fitted to his theory. (Not
by Mendel himself, he didn't do chi squares). While Mendel's
theory of genetics overestimated the degrees of freedom, his
data fit modern genetic theory quite well.
If someone has a scientifically valid theory, they will have
the math to support it. The same is true for a scientifically
valid criticism of a theory.
If instead, their criticism is that the tic spacing on a graph
is too close, well, that conclusion is left as an exercise for
the reader.
--
FF
On 4 Jul 2005 12:01:09 -0700, the opaque [email protected]
clearly wrote:
>Larry Jaques wrote:
>> "How can we make our point with so little data to go on? Aha, make the
>> increments so small the data (with which we want to scare folks) is
>> off the charts!" Oh, and "Let's estimate data about 10x longer than
>> we have ANY data for.)
>
>SPLORF! I realize that is not your only criticism but it is hilarious
>that you would base ANY criticism on the tic spacing on the temeprature
>axis. If they spaced the tics 10 degrees apart the plot would look the
>same, it would just be harder to convert the picture to numbers.
Graph range has been used to hide data more than once, bubba. Here
they go the opposite direction to support falsehoods and hysteria.
Yes, global warming is real. We're coming out of the Little Ice Age.
But I don't expect to see anything like Hell on Earth any time soon,
nor do I believe that the other scientists, such as those the movie
"The Day After Tomorrow" concept was based on, have a solid data
set(read: clue), either. Chances are good that we may see a full ONE
DEGREE CENTIGRADE rise in temps this century. I'm more afraid of OJ
than I am of Global Warming.
>> Recommendation for Chicken Littles: Read Michael Crichton's book
>> "State of Fear" for both a great story and an excellent reference
>> work with detailed bibliography for further research. It will give
>> you a whole new perspective, I guarantee!
>
>Fiction or non-Fiction?
Fiction, but he states up front that ALL the data supplied is real and
he supports that with references in the back of the book, including
books, websites, published paper references, etc. If you think the
world is melting and we're all gonna die, I strongly suggest you read
that book tomorrow. Here are a couple links:
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/ghcn/ghcn.html
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
The data for Punta Arenas (the closest station to Antarctica) shows a
mean 0.5C drop in temps between 1888 and 2005. It's getting COLDER!
<http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=304859340004&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1>
>> Annoy a politician: Be trustworthy, faithful, and honest!
>> ---
>Daring advice! Let us know how that works out for you, unless they
>take your internet access away ...
Well, they haven't yet, but I have seen a black helicopter. ;)
---
Annoy a politician: Be trustworthy, faithful, and honest!
---
http://www.diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development
In article <[email protected]>, David <[email protected]> wrote:
>Seems over the top and awfully pretentious. What procedure for TRYING
>to save a bad battery pack warrants a patent? When I've had bad battery
>packs, I've found dead cells. There's no hocus pocus that's gonna bring
>those dead cells back to life.
Google on "revive NiCad battery" and you'll discover that (apparently) there
*is* such hocus pocus.
>
>Was it PT Barnum that said...?
>
>Any chance the "feedback" is bogus?
Of course. However, there's an awful lot of it. Which means that someone went
to an awful lot of trouble to create it.
>
>Even if Doug gets an email back, why couldn't it be coming from a shill?
I did get one response. Yes, it could be coming from a shill. Doesn't sound
like it IMO, though:
"Hello! Yes, it works well-but not on all batteries. Firstly, you need to be
able to access the individual cells. Using a 10-12 volt source battery(9 is
too weak I've found) you "zap" each dead cell-most are revived and can then be
charged. Some won't work at all and some don't hold it. However, the first
one (an 18 volt Milwaukee battery) that had several bad cells has held 20
volts for several weeks. Others have not held it. You can always take the
remaining good cells from an otherwise bad battery overall for use later
(SOLDERING SKILLS HELP). He also has a new "quick" method that is easier but
doesn't always work. Easily worth the $13 for one battery if you ask me. "
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
In article <[email protected]>, Juergen Hannappel <[email protected]> wrote:
>Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> writes:
>
>[...]
>
>> Well, in actuality it <isn't> so different except in relative starting
>> points---there are still sizable populations of disadvantaged in every
>> country of which I am aware and I know of no magic bullet to make those
>> on the lower rungs to become content to remaining there in
>> perpetuity....
>
>Of course leveling the standard of living has to go in both
>directions: better for the poor, worse for the rich.
How do you propose to achieve this leveling of the standard of living? That
experiment was tried, you know, beginning in 1917. And it didn't work.
I prefer a society in which everyone's standard of living improves.
>Globally speaking, all of us in the west are rich.
>
>We should aim at getting average and median closer togeher.
Capitalism has proven to be a remarkably effective tool for doing just that.
Compare modern Europe to feudal Europe for an example.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
And don't forget that the btu per unit weight of alcohol is only about
1/2 that of diesel or gasoline.
--
Larry Wasserman Baltimore, Maryland
[email protected]
Robert Bonomi wrote:
>
> I dunno. maybe because the oil in those fryers -- at maybe 5-10 gallons
> per site -- typically gets changed far less often than once a week.
>
> Assuming there's 1 such fryer for every 10 people -- I have no real idea,
> but I suspect its more like 1 per several hundred, if not thousand -- that
> source will produce an average of 1 gallon/week per person. This isn't
> exactly a significant dent in usage.
I have a customer who does collect used fryer oil as well as a lot of
other waste materials which they render.
They do quite a business these days.
Lew
Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, David
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Seems over the top and awfully pretentious. What procedure for TRYING
>>to save a bad battery pack warrants a patent?
>
>
> The site says "patent pending"...
>
> There is no patent.
>
Yep. "Patent pending" means one has been applied for, but not granted.
I applied for a patent on my electric fork, but the shitheels at the
patent office never gave me one.
Bob
In article <[email protected]>,
Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 00:48:03 GMT, CW <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The carborator was real and did work. The rumor mill distorted the claims.
>> It did do what it was claimed by the the manufacturer to do.
>
>Please provide a credible cite for this. We'll get into the chemical
>limitations once you do that. "I heard a guy say a friend of a friend
>said" isn't a cite, by the way.
>
That should have read "CARBONATOR" What it did was to carbonate the
gasoline (like Coca Cola) then when the gasoline was compressed in
the cylinder & ignited, the extra pressure resulting from the release
of CO2 from the carbonated gas would give more power!
Only problem was that it would make the engine burp & gurgle at times.
--
Larry Wasserman Baltimore, Maryland
[email protected]
yeah. It sounds "patently" hoky. :)
Dave
Dave Balderstone wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, David
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Seems over the top and awfully pretentious. What procedure for TRYING
>>to save a bad battery pack warrants a patent?
>
>
> The site says "patent pending"...
>
> There is no patent.
>
Duane Bozarth wrote:
> tom wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 10:51:02 -0500, Puff Griffis <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>My Batteries Plus store will not touch battery packs from cordless power tools. At least that's what the fellow told me in November last year. Could be the packs you brought in were not screwed together, rather a glued-up box? At least that was the kicker for my Batteries Plus store. Tom
>
>
> Any competent rebuilder should have the ability to dissasemble virtually
> any battery pack and rebuild it...there are at least two independent
> ones in Wichita I've used. Everything from early-death drill packs to
> antique HP calculators.
Somehow I don't think this is what the OP had in mind. The eBay scam
looks more like a magic pill than a competent rebuild.
Bob
In article <[email protected]>, Bob Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>in 1216854 20050629 222345 [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>>In article <[email protected]>, Juergen Hannappel
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>>>> Here in America, we do not share the belief that there are any
>>>> limits.
>>>
>>>That is well known and bitterly grieved over by the rest of the world
>>>which has to suffer the consequences.
>>>
>>You know, it really pisses me off to hear western Europeans whining about
>>America.
>>
>>Where the hell would you have been in the 1940s, without America's belief that
>>there are no limits? This nation came out of the worst economy of modern times
>>and built a massive military machine _from_scratch_ to free your sorry asses
>>from a dictator that you weren't able to get rid of on your own(and in the
>>case of your nation specifically, weren't *willing* to get rid of), because we
>>knew it was the right thing to do - and because of our persistent belief that
>>We Can. We don't ever see any limits, and instead of "bitterly griev[ing]"
>>that you should be on your knees giving thanks for six decades of freedom that
>>you owe *solely* to the United States.
>>
>>Who do you suppose it was that kept you free *after* the war ended? It sure as
>>hell wasn't your *own* armies that kept the Soviets out. Yes, we screwed up at
>>Yalta, and abandoned eastern Europe, to our shame. But if it hadn't been for
>>the American military, and American nuclear weapons [I bet that'll *really*
>>get your panties twisted in a knot, but it's true], the Iron Curtain would've
>>been at the Atlantic Ocean instead of in the middle of the continent.
>>
>>And this is the thanks we get.
>
>Doug, we don't need to start this "battle of the allies" yet again.
>
>To correct your somewhat skewed view of history please read the relevant
>discussions in soc.history.war.world-war-ii
I'm not interested in revisionism.
I was responding to Dr. Hannappel's somewhat skewed view of the value of
American economic growth to the rest of the world. It was American economic
growth that enabled the United States to defeat the Axis powers in WWII; it
was American economic growth that enabled the United States to fight, and win,
the Cold War - and I didn't even mention the Marshall Plan (also fueled by
American economic growth).
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On 3 Jul 2005 00:41:19 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Mark & Juanita wrote:
> >> On 2 Jul 2005 21:57:11 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> ... snip
> >> >This is the sort of nonsense one reads from junk scientists. There
> >> >is no doubt that humans have an effect on Global Climate. The issue
> >> >in controversy is the magnitude and direction.
> >> >
> >> >Typical of the junk scientist is a tendency to try to reduce all
> >> >questions as a dichotomy and to claim (contary to fact) that
> >> >statistics can determine which answer is correct.
> >> >
> >> >...
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> The global warming hysteria is a prime example. The idea that by
> >> >> measuring tree ring size, one can determine the average temperature of an
> >> >> area to within tenths of a degree is ludicrous, yet this is one of the bits
> >> >> of evidence being used to show how average temperature is increasing
> >> >> compared to several centuries in the past.
> >> >
> >> >In general I tend to doubt stories presented without references.
> >> >In the instant case this sounds like it might be a misrepresentation
> >> >of some published work by a junk scientist (like Malloy) who most
> >> >likely didn't understand it in the first place.
> >>
> >>
> >> ... alright fred, present a credible source for how global temperature
> >> change in tenths of a degree (which is the amount and rate being cited for
> >> global warming evidence) can be identified for periods before accurate
> >> weather records were kept.
> >
> >Why should I? You haven't presented any credible source indicating
> >that anyone claims to be able to do so.
> >
>
>
> As you are so fond of saying, Google is your friend.
Uh, you suggest that I should search for something I don't
think exists, in order to show it doesn't exist? Logic
would not seem to be your strong point.
...
>
> Fine, you are right. By rasing the average temperature of the area of a
> city by one degree, you will have raised the "average" temperature of the
> earth (depending, of course upon whether that city area is one of the
> regions in which you take measurements to compute the average). Now, let's
> see, a city on the order of 1000 square miles will contribute to the
> overall average for the Earth's surface area of 197,000,000 square miles by
> 1/197,000, or a total influence of 5 microKelvin. Now, given that a fair
> amount of that will be re-radiated into space, depending upon season, cloud
> cover, etc, this amount is typically what most people would call
> "negligible".
Do you understand what sorts of conclusions are possible from
statistics
and what sorts are not?
--
FF
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On 3 Jul 2005 00:41:19 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Mark & Juanita wrote:
> >> On 2 Jul 2005 21:57:11 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> ... snip
> >> >This is the sort of nonsense one reads from junk scientists. There
> >> >is no doubt that humans have an effect on Global Climate. The issue
> >> >in controversy is the magnitude and direction.
> >> >
> >> >Typical of the junk scientist is a tendency to try to reduce all
> >> >questions as a dichotomy and to claim (contary to fact) that
> >> >statistics can determine which answer is correct.
> >> >
> >> >...
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> The global warming hysteria is a prime example. The idea that by
> >> >> measuring tree ring size, one can determine the average temperature of an
> >> >> area to within tenths of a degree is ludicrous, yet this is one of the bits
> >> >> of evidence being used to show how average temperature is increasing
> >> >> compared to several centuries in the past.
> >> >
> >> >In general I tend to doubt stories presented without references.
> >> >In the instant case this sounds like it might be a misrepresentation
> >> >of some published work by a junk scientist (like Malloy) who most
> >> >likely didn't understand it in the first place.
> >>
> >>
> >> ... alright fred, present a credible source for how global temperature
> >> change in tenths of a degree (which is the amount and rate being cited for
> >> global warming evidence) can be identified for periods before accurate
> >> weather records were kept.
> >
> >Why should I? You haven't presented any credible source indicating
> >that anyone claims to be able to do so.
> >
>
>
> As you are so fond of saying, Google is your friend.
Uh, you suggest that I should search for something I don't
think exists, in order to show it doesn't exist? Logic
would not seem to be your strong point.
...
>
> Fine, you are right. By rasing the average temperature of the area of a
> city by one degree, you will have raised the "average" temperature of the
> earth (depending, of course upon whether that city area is one of the
> regions in which you take measurements to compute the average). Now, let's
> see, a city on the order of 1000 square miles will contribute to the
> overall average for the Earth's surface area of 197,000,000 square miles by
> 1/197,000, or a total influence of 5 microKelvin. Now, given that a fair
> amount of that will be re-radiated into space, depending upon season, cloud
> cover, etc, this amount is typically what most people would call
> "negligible".
Do you understand what sorts of conclusions are possible from
statistics
and what sorts are not?
--
FF
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On 3 Jul 2005 00:41:19 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Mark & Juanita wrote:
> >> On 2 Jul 2005 21:57:11 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> ... snip
> >> >This is the sort of nonsense one reads from junk scientists. There
> >> >is no doubt that humans have an effect on Global Climate. The issue
> >> >in controversy is the magnitude and direction.
> >> >
> >> >Typical of the junk scientist is a tendency to try to reduce all
> >> >questions as a dichotomy and to claim (contary to fact) that
> >> >statistics can determine which answer is correct.
> >> >
> >> >...
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> The global warming hysteria is a prime example. The idea that by
> >> >> measuring tree ring size, one can determine the average temperature of an
> >> >> area to within tenths of a degree is ludicrous, yet this is one of the bits
> >> >> of evidence being used to show how average temperature is increasing
> >> >> compared to several centuries in the past.
> >> >
> >> >In general I tend to doubt stories presented without references.
> >> >In the instant case this sounds like it might be a misrepresentation
> >> >of some published work by a junk scientist (like Malloy) who most
> >> >likely didn't understand it in the first place.
> >>
> >>
> >> ... alright fred, present a credible source for how global temperature
> >> change in tenths of a degree (which is the amount and rate being cited for
> >> global warming evidence) can be identified for periods before accurate
> >> weather records were kept.
> >
> >Why should I? You haven't presented any credible source indicating
> >that anyone claims to be able to do so.
> >
>
>
> As you are so fond of saying, Google is your friend.
My first response was snide and I've deleted it.
What cuaght my eye was your statement "The idea that by measuring
tree ring size, one can determine the average temperature of an
area to within tenths of a degree is ludicrous."
A quick google search using the search terms "tree ring" and "average
temperature" does not yield anyoone making such a claim.
So, I remain skeptical that such a claim has been made.
> Try to hearken
> back to various debates in which the infamous "hockey stick" chart is shown
> that attempts to show departures from average temperatures in 1961 to 1990
> for the years 1000 AD to current time, showing this sudden jump of +.5C
> when the other tempertures were below. The difference is less than 0.5 C.
> The "measurements" from tree rings, corrals, ice cores and "historical
> records" (remember that no calibrated met stations existed in 1000 AD) are
> all being pegged at less than 0.5 C increments.
A Google search for "hockey stick chart" yields a few pages that come
up 404, perhaps due ot the NHL strike, and a few that criticize
"the hocky stick chart" but I haven't found any explanation of the
chart itself.
One example is found here:
http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/wca/2004/wca_24c.html
The chart appears to be a graph of temperature as a function
of time. Note the caption on the left side which indicates
the temperature origin is a "1961 to 1990 average." What is
meant by "1961 to 1990 average" is a mystery to me but inasmuch
as choice of origin is arbitrary let's not worry about
that.
It looks to me like the error bars (in grey--if those are
not error bars I don't know what they are) are about +/-
.5 degree for observations prior to about 1600, perhaps +/-
.3 degrees from 1600 - 1900 and I won't hazard a guess as
to what they are in the more recent data.
So, what again is your objection? Do you feel the the variance
in the data prior to 1600 was underestimated? If so, what
do you allege has been mishandled in the error estimation?
What do you mean by "pegged at less than 0.5 C increments"?
"Pegged" is usually used to mean a hard limit, for example met
sensor data showing relative humidity inexcess of 100% may be
arbitrarily adjusted to ("pegged" at) 100% at ingest, though
the term more often refers to a hard limit on the measurement
device itself (e.g. "pegging the meter").
The only 0.5 degree C increments I see are the major tick spacing
on the vertical (temperature) axis. Again, like the choice of
origin, that is arbitrary.
IOW, I don't see anything here to the effect of "that by measuring
tree ring size, one can determine the average temperature of an
area to within tenths of a degree is ludicrous."
If it is your intent to make another point, that point is lost
on me.
> Fine, you are right. By rasing the average temperature of the area of a
> city by one degree, you will have raised the "average" temperature of the
> earth (depending, of course upon whether that city area is one of the
> regions in which you take measurements to compute the average). Now, let's
> see, a city on the order of 1000 square miles will contribute to the
> overall average for the Earth's surface area of 197,000,000 square miles by
> 1/197,000, or a total influence of 5 microKelvin. Now, given that a fair
> amount of that will be re-radiated into space, depending upon season, cloud
> cover, etc, this amount is typically what most people would call
> "negligible".
Maybe.
But people who use statistics know that statistics cannot answer
yes/no questions nor tell you how large an effect there is.
Statistics can only estomate the probability that the true
value of some measurable lies within some arbitrary amount from
a specific value.
That seems to frustrate a lot of people but Nature doesn't really
care.
--
FF
On 3 Jul 2005 00:41:19 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>Mark & Juanita wrote:
>> On 2 Jul 2005 21:57:11 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> >
>> ... snip
>> >This is the sort of nonsense one reads from junk scientists. There
>> >is no doubt that humans have an effect on Global Climate. The issue
>> >in controversy is the magnitude and direction.
>> >
>> >Typical of the junk scientist is a tendency to try to reduce all
>> >questions as a dichotomy and to claim (contary to fact) that
>> >statistics can determine which answer is correct.
>> >
>> >...
>> >
>> >>
>> >> The global warming hysteria is a prime example. The idea that by
>> >> measuring tree ring size, one can determine the average temperature of an
>> >> area to within tenths of a degree is ludicrous, yet this is one of the bits
>> >> of evidence being used to show how average temperature is increasing
>> >> compared to several centuries in the past.
>> >
>> >In general I tend to doubt stories presented without references.
>> >In the instant case this sounds like it might be a misrepresentation
>> >of some published work by a junk scientist (like Malloy) who most
>> >likely didn't understand it in the first place.
>>
>>
>> ... alright fred, present a credible source for how global temperature
>> change in tenths of a degree (which is the amount and rate being cited for
>> global warming evidence) can be identified for periods before accurate
>> weather records were kept.
>
>Why should I? You haven't presented any credible source indicating
>that anyone claims to be able to do so.
>
As you are so fond of saying, Google is your friend. Try to hearken
back to various debates in which the infamous "hockey stick" chart is shown
that attempts to show departures from average temperatures in 1961 to 1990
for the years 1000 AD to current time, showing this sudden jump of +.5C
when the other tempertures were below. The difference is less than 0.5 C.
The "measurements" from tree rings, corrals, ice cores and "historical
records" (remember that no calibrated met stations existed in 1000 AD) are
all being pegged at less than 0.5 C increments.
>> ...
>> Unfortunately peer reviewed journals aren't what they once were.
>
>Regardless, letters to the editor for the Washinton Post remain pretty
>much what they always were, eh?
>
>> ... This does not seem to be true today; statistical correlation
>> techniques are often substituted for root-cause phenomenological analysis.
>
>You can show this some way?
>
Yes, but it wouldn't be worth it, would it?
>> Finally, the other thing missing is identifying causality; even when long
>> term trends are identified, showing that human activity is the cause for
>> said phenomena has thus far been highly speculative. To derail an entire
>> culture on such speculative evidence should make people question the
>> underlying motives of those demanding such actions. Again, note that I am
>> not saying that human activity cannot mess up local environments; ample
>> evidence for this exists. However, scaling that evidence to a global scale
>> is far from a proven fact.
>>
>
>Non sequitor.
>
>Any local effect IS part of a global effect. As tricial example, if
>you raise the temperature of a city by one degree, that has an effect
>on a 'global average temperature.' The issue is the magnitude
>and direction of the cumulative global effects.
Fine, you are right. By rasing the average temperature of the area of a
city by one degree, you will have raised the "average" temperature of the
earth (depending, of course upon whether that city area is one of the
regions in which you take measurements to compute the average). Now, let's
see, a city on the order of 1000 square miles will contribute to the
overall average for the Earth's surface area of 197,000,000 square miles by
1/197,000, or a total influence of 5 microKelvin. Now, given that a fair
amount of that will be re-radiated into space, depending upon season, cloud
cover, etc, this amount is typically what most people would call
"negligible".
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On 27 Jun 2005 15:25:25 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>Well, if it's going to be relevant when we're talking about a
>transportation device, yeah, it's kind of important.
>
>> VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 80.7
>> VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 80.7
>> CITROEN C1 1398 D 83.1
>> HONDA Insight 995 P/ E 94.2
>
>Would any of those pass USA'n crash tests?
FORD New Focus 1560 D 70.6
I sure hope so, considering the Ford dealership just sold me one.
Doesn't get 70 mpg, though. I've got 41 without A/C so far, though-
that's with the manual transmission and approximately 20% stop-and-go
city traffic. With the A/C on, it drops to about 32 mpg.
"Hax Planx" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> picked up. I stopped picking up hitchhikers before my 17th birthday
> some twenty years ago.
One of them bite you? Are you telling me that at the tender age of 18, you
wouldn't have stopped for some hitchhiking cute woman in a short skirt?
Gene T wrote:
> Has anyone been brave enough to pay for info on how to "revive" cordless
> toll batteries that no longer hold a charge?
> This guy is selling this "info" On Ebay for $12.95 and has a 99.7% feedback.
> Can this be true?
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=632&item=4389110247&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW
> Gene
If it were true, don't you think the manufacturers would have figured
out how to do it and make money on the process? This smells like the
infamous Fish carburetor of long ago. You know, the one that got 50-60
mpg as a bolt-on.
Bob
Duane Bozarth wrote:
> George wrote:
>
>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>
>>>after the sugars have been fermented into alcohol, what's left is
>>>mostly cellulose, right?
>>>
>>>make it into MDF.
>>
>>Cellulose is sugar. Breaking it up might be useful.
>
>
> I think there is where the NEV would go negative...but I've not looked
> into the chemical process balance in depth as yet.
The easiest way to break up the cellulose is to
feed it to cows. Nothing negative to that; the
cows make it into milk or beefsteak.
"CW" <[email protected]> writes:
> "Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Please provide a credible cite for this. We'll get into the chemical
>> limitations once you do that. "I heard a guy say a friend of a friend
>> said" isn't a cite, by the way.
> I was quite ready to discuss the myths and realities of this (the realities
> you are obviously unaware of) but you immidiatly took your prick stance. In
> that case, go fuck yourself.
Asking for a credible citation isn't being a prick. As an outsider, I
can only conclude you can't provide a citation for your facts.
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
Edwin Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
> That's a big drop with AC. Both my cars have 3.8 liter engines and the
> difference is no more than 1 mpg. Neither gets 42 mpg and struggle to get
> 30 on all highway
I believe most cars get better mileage on the highway with the AC
turned on and the windows closed than with the AC off and the windows
open. The added aerodynamic drag introduced by opening the windows is
worse than turning the AC on.
Best mileage is with the AC off and the windows up :-)
Dave Balderstone <dave@n_o_t_t_h_i_s.balderstone.ca> wrote:
: We ran a story a couple of weeks ago about a research pproject that was
: close to producing bio-diesel from the animal parts that can no longer
: be rendered due to the BSE scare and the closure of the US border to
: our cattle.
Thermal depolymerization. Interesting article here:
http://www.discover.com/may_03/gthere.html?article=featoil.html
-- Andy Barss
In article <[email protected]>, "Gene T" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Has anyone been brave enough to pay for info on how to "revive" cordless
>toll batteries that no longer hold a charge?
>This guy is selling this "info" On Ebay for $12.95 and has a 99.7% feedback.
>Can this be true?
>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=632&item=4389110247&rd=1
>&ssPageName=WDVW
Dunno.... sounds interesting, but fishy. I just sent emails to five of his
buyers, selected at random from among those who bought at least a month ago,
asking if they're still happy. If I get any responses, I'll post them.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
No offense, but please cite the name of the manufacturer ("Fish Co."
isn't good enough) and some supporting evidence that the thing existed.
Bob
CW wrote:
> The carborator was real and did work. The rumor mill distorted the claims.
> It did do what it was claimed by the the manufacturer to do.
>
> "Bob Schmall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Gene T wrote:
>>
>>>Has anyone been brave enough to pay for info on how to "revive" cordless
>>>toll batteries that no longer hold a charge?
>>>This guy is selling this "info" On Ebay for $12.95 and has a 99.7%
>
> feedback.
>
>>>Can this be true?
>>>
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=632&item=4389110247&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW
>
>>>Gene
>>
>>If it were true, don't you think the manufacturers would have figured
>>out how to do it and make money on the process? This smells like the
>>infamous Fish carburetor of long ago. You know, the one that got 50-60
>>mpg as a bolt-on.
>>Bob
>
>
>
in 1216854 20050629 222345 [email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Juergen Hannappel <[email protected]> wrote:
>>[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>>> Here in America, we do not share the belief that there are any
>>> limits.
>>
>>That is well known and bitterly grieved over by the rest of the world
>>which has to suffer the consequences.
>>
>You know, it really pisses me off to hear western Europeans whining about
>America.
>
>Where the hell would you have been in the 1940s, without America's belief that
>there are no limits? This nation came out of the worst economy of modern times
>and built a massive military machine _from_scratch_ to free your sorry asses
>from a dictator that you weren't able to get rid of on your own(and in the
>case of your nation specifically, weren't *willing* to get rid of), because we
>knew it was the right thing to do - and because of our persistent belief that
>We Can. We don't ever see any limits, and instead of "bitterly griev[ing]"
>that you should be on your knees giving thanks for six decades of freedom that
>you owe *solely* to the United States.
>
>Who do you suppose it was that kept you free *after* the war ended? It sure as
>hell wasn't your *own* armies that kept the Soviets out. Yes, we screwed up at
>Yalta, and abandoned eastern Europe, to our shame. But if it hadn't been for
>the American military, and American nuclear weapons [I bet that'll *really*
>get your panties twisted in a knot, but it's true], the Iron Curtain would've
>been at the Atlantic Ocean instead of in the middle of the continent.
>
>And this is the thanks we get.
Doug, we don't need to start this "battle of the allies" yet again.
To correct your somewhat skewed view of history please read the relevant
discussions in soc.history.war.world-war-ii
Unquestionably Confused <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> Be very careful with this one. I installed one backwards by mistake
> and my MPG decreased by 35%. Called J.C. Whitney and they
Yeahbut it should'a worked fine if you moved to New Zealand, right?
I emailed the owner and asked:
Hello Rick, just to let you know, your auction for the battery technique
is being discussed in rec.woodworking... You could pop in there and
explain it as a genuine way to save memory choked batteries if you want,
but if what you are selling is merely a link to site that shows a way to
connect wires in a specific way and it works, do you think it is really
worth $12.95? --(me)
----
His answer:
I am the president of Unique Dynamics, Inc. that has copyright and patent
rights to the process. The best way to determine if the process is worth the
money is to read the ebay feedback and the testimonials.
http://resurrection.uniquedynamics.com/
----
So, if one "buys it" they get a URL and a password to the instructions. I
assume they can be copied, if not then a screen capture program can be used,
or the whole page saved to disc.
The one single negative feedback he's got is funny. But I really don't think
it is a big deal to risk and try it out. personally I do not use ccordless power
tools unless it is a skil twist, which needs a new battery.
--
Alex - newbie_neander in woodworking
cravdraa_at-yahoo_dot-com
not my site: http://www.e-sword.net/
On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 10:28:04 -0500, Duane Bozarth
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>> Duane Bozarth wrote:
>> > [email protected] wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > > > Ethanol is better deal to date...
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Made from corn? I have been wondering if it would not be better to
>> > > > > use sorghum, which grows well over much of the same range as corn,
>> > > > > for producing the sugar used to make ethanol.
>> > > >
>> > > > Primarily corn, yes. Sorghum doesn't have nearly the sugar content of
>> > > > corn and nowhere nor the yield/acre.
>> > >
>> > > I gather that the suagar/acre ration is lower for sorghum. I'm
>> > > not surprised that the corn kernals have a higher concentration
>> > > of sugar than the sorghum stalks but am surpised that there is
>> > > more sugar in the whole corn plant, than in the whole sorghum plant.
>> > > When corn is raised for ethanol production, do they squeeze the
>> > > whole plant, rather than just the kernals?
>> >
>> > No, the grain is the feedstock, not the plant...the grain must ripen to
>> > achiece maximum energy content (and as a secondary necessity, must be
>> > dry enough to be handled and stored w/o danger of mold damage and
>> > spontaneous combustion) and at that time the sugars in the foliage are
>> > largely used up.
>>
>> I'm surprised ther eis more sugar in corn kernals than in the entire
>> sorghum plant. I'm not clear on why the grain is stored at all. It
>> seems ot me it would be more efficient to continuously process it
>> as it is harvested and just tank the jiuce. E.g. make the 'squeezer'
>> part of the combine.
>
>I've done some more looking specifically wrt to grain sorghum as
>feedstock vis a vis corn and discover my perceptions were based on my
>past knowledge regarding feed value more than current state of ethanol
>production. In an summary assessment done by a KSU researcher, the
>difference in grain feedstock is actually nearly immaterial to the
>overall NEV and only a factor economically based on the actual
>price--grain sorghum w/ it's historic discount as opposed to corn is
>actually somewhat of a benefit. The major difference (and what confused
>me) in NEV between, say, 1995 and present is <not> nearly as much
>attributable to the feedstock as it is essentially all owing to
>enhancements in the process itself.
>
>What is apparently a limiting factor for ethanol may well be how to
>generate sufficient market for the byproducts which are necessary to be
>sold in order to make the profitability of the producing plants. The
>distillers grains are feed for livestock but it appears there may become
>a point at which there can not be sufficient demand for all that would
>be produced.
after the sugars have been fermented into alcohol, what's left is
mostly cellulose, right?
make it into MDF.
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 09:17:50 -0500, "Morris Dovey" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Duane Bozarth (in [email protected]) said:
>
>| Morris Dovey wrote:
>| ....
>|| We can expect that as the cost of fuel rises, more and more land
>|| will be given over to ethanol production - and other crops will be
>|| sacrificed until a (shifting) economic balance is achieved. Soybean
>|| derivatives (everything from livestock feed to plastics) will
>|| become sharply more expensive.
>|
>|| If the pressures to maximize ethanol production are sufficiently
>|| high, we face the danger of taking a giant step backward to
>|| repetitively planting the same crop on the same land until the
>|| soil is exhausted. Should we get to that point, there will be
>|| serious breakage - and the worst of it won't be in the corn belt.
>|
>| I think you overestimate this scenario extensively...for one thing,
>| at present there are millions of acres of formerly-producing crop
>| ground in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) that could, <IF>
>| (that's the "big if" :) ) it were necessary and economical, be
>| brought back into production for many of these ancillary crops as
>| well as corn and soybeans. As for land "exhaustion", if there is
>| any segment that is concerned w/ maintaining productivity of the
>| land, it is we producers--after all, that is our <direct>
>| livelihood, not indirect.
>
>You're right, the scenario I presented assumed no major scientific
>breakthrough - and a prolonged "emergency" (as defined by folks in
>DC.)
>
>The really sad scenario would be removing control of the land from
>those who have a sense of stewardship in favor of management by larger
>("more efficient") organizations who aren't able to do much of
>anything well except make campaign contributions.
>
>The Supreme Court's recent decision in the Connecticut condemnation
>case provides precedent for other cases that *will* affect family
>farms. The only questions are how many farms, and where, and for what
>purpose...
>
The decision for which, I will reiterate, was rendered by the *liberal*
block of the Supreme Court with the collusion of the "moderate" Sandra
O'Connor (moderate in this usage being defined as a liberal without the
brazos to declare themselves so).
>"National security interests" appears to have become a buzz phrase to
>justify even the most outrageous behavior. These days it even trumps
>principles like "due process".
>
Your reference above had nothing to do with "national security
interests" in the referenced case and everything to do with tax revenue and
the ability to advance the cause of statism.
Actually, screwing farmers for the sake of "national security" is nothing
new. Ask the heirs of some of the farmers during WWII who were "relocated"
by Rocky Mountain Arsenal in Denver or some of the other military
infrastructure needs at the time.
>I wish I shared your confidence and optimism.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Hax Planx <[email protected]> wrote:
>I once picked up a hitchhiker who claimed he knew of a guy who bought a
>prototype Chrysler that got 80mpg.
Well seeing as there are many road vehicles in Europe that routinely
hit that figure its not surprising, as to whether a Chrysler could do
it I have my doubts. Other vehicles in the Daimler Chrysler group
could though.
Just to prove what can be done the world record for a vehicle capable
of carrying a human is currently 10703 - yes you read that right, ten
thousand, ten followed by four zeros, miles per gallon.
--
[email protected] (in
[email protected]) said:
| Robert Bonomi wrote:
|| ...
||
|| Automobile usage is a small part of total fuel consumption. like
|| 1/5 or less. of vehicular use. well under 10% of all petroleum
|| consumption, when you include oil-fired heating, farm implement,
|| and marine use.
|
| Moreover fuel does not account for all the petroleum used.
| Petroleum is the single most important feedstock for organic
| chemicals like virtually all synthetic fabrics, plastics and
| solvents.
|
| Your arithmetic is quite sobering.
It is indeed.
We can expect that as the cost of fuel rises, more and more land will
be given over to ethanol production - and other crops will be
sacrificed until a (shifting) economic balance is achieved. Soybean
derivatives (everything from livestock feed to plastics) will become
sharply more expensive.
If the pressures to maximize ethanol production are sufficiently high,
we face the danger of taking a giant step backward to repetitively
planting the same crop on the same land until the soil is exhausted.
Should we get to that point, there will be serious breakage - and the
worst of it won't be in the corn belt.
We urgently need to develop alternative energy sources and rethink
(especially) our building, production, and transportation
technologies. Even 200 mpg cars and 100 mpg trucks won't solve the
problem, or even just keep us from freezing in the winter.
We should perhaps begin thnking in terms of /passenger/ miles per
gallon and /ton/ miles per gallon instead of /vehicle/ miles per
gallon.
And (near and dear to /my/ heart) we need to improve thermal
efficiency of the structures we build so that those structures /can/
be 100 - 150% solar heated. All of the technology we need to
accomplish this is already available - the problem is that most of
what we build with traditional methods is so "lossy" that solar can
only provide 30 - 50% of the energy needed for heat.
All of this points to a need for improved and expanded architectural
and engineering education - at a time when quality of education
appears to be "on the skids".
<rant>
It makes me crazy that people seem so willing to say: "What do you
expect from me - /I/ can't do anything," and expect that politicians
will /legislate/ a (no cost) solution. Have we really dumbed down that
much?
</rant>
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/solar.html
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <7mBxe.4128$kM5.1510@trndny05>, "Tim and Steph" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>Funny thing - Following a recent engine swap, I've suddenly got a wonky
>>speedo, which is of course making the odometer less than reliable. I
>>filled
>>up the tank the other day, and checked the mileage. A quick bit of math
>>led
>>to around 84 MPG. That's one goddamn fine engine I put in there! :)
>
> Swap the transmission too? Kinda hard to see how an engine swap alone
> could do
> that... easy if you changed the tranny as well.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>
> It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Nope - I'm guessin' either the speedo cable got smashed in the swap, or it's
just a freak coinky-dink and the speed sensor's going south. Kinda fun
watching the needle waving between 60 and 100 when you're going 40, though.
"Woohoo! We're flyin' now!"
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>Doug Miller wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Michael
> Houghton) wrote:
>> >
>> >The response from the seller sounds a lot like he is trying to sell you
>> >dehydrated water.
>>
>> Note that the response I posted was not from the seller, but from one of the
>> *buyers*.
>>
>
>Uh, how confident are you that they are really two different people?
>
I emailed several buyers selected at random... for whatever that's worth.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?
On 30 Jun 2005 11:05:23 -0400, [email protected] (Roy Smith) wrote:
>Edwin Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>> That's a big drop with AC. Both my cars have 3.8 liter engines and the
>> difference is no more than 1 mpg. Neither gets 42 mpg and struggle to get
>> 30 on all highway
>
>I believe most cars get better mileage on the highway with the AC
>turned on and the windows closed than with the AC off and the windows
>open. The added aerodynamic drag introduced by opening the windows is
>worse than turning the AC on.
They did an episode of that "Mythbusters" show on that very thing. At
first it seemed like they were the same, but when they took identical
vehicles on a track and tried running them until they were out of gas,
the car running AC lost by a large margin. Seemed that the drag from
the open window wasn't nearly as much of a factor. They only tested
one make, though- I would imagine the body style has a lot to do with
how much drag is really there.
>Best mileage is with the AC off and the windows up :-)
You want something in print, you'll have to dig it up yourself. About a year
ago, there was an interview, on a radio talk show, with the maker of the
carburetor that had so much BS behind it. It was not represented as a "100
hundred mile per gallon" conversion. It wouldn't really improve anything on
a standard passenger car. It was intended for the RV market, where engines
were under a heavy load. The difference was the spraybar. It forced
atomization instead of relying on airflow as in a regular carb. This
improved combustion efficiency. The improvement was not earth shattering but
was there. The host of the show had heard all of these wild claims that were
going around and, wanting to get the real story, tracked this guy down. The
conspiracy theorists said that the oil companies bought this guy out, had
him killed, ect. Not at all true. The reason that he ceased production was
due to the advent of fuel injection. It was more efficient than any
carburetor.
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 10:05:17 GMT, Tom Quackenbush
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Mark & Juanita wrote:
><snip>
>> The decision for which, I will reiterate, was rendered by the *liberal*
>>block of the Supreme Court with the collusion of the "moderate" Sandra
>>O'Connor (moderate in this usage being defined as a liberal without the
>>brazos to declare themselves so).
><snip>
>
> Can you elaborate on how O'Conner colluded with the "liberal" block
>in the Kelo case?
>
My apologies, the vote for the siezure case was 5-4. In this case
O'Connor actually voted in the dissent; the original story upon which I
based my comment above had indicated she was one of the 5. (No, it was an
AP posting shortly after the ruling, so don't go "right wing whacko media
here"). That was obviously in error and has since been corrected as a
Google search just indicated.
My original rant was based upon that originally erroneous story and the
fact that she has in the past sided with things such as upholding the
reversal of first amendment rights in the campaign finance reform law
decision. Given that occurence, I didn't question what I had originally
read.
>R,
>Tom Q.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>Can you provide examples of 80mpg production vehicles please?
>> Just to prove what can be done the world record for a vehicle capable
>> of carrying a human is currently 10703 - yes you read that right, ten
>> thousand, ten followed by four zeros, miles per gallon.
>
>And is that vehicle roadworthy?
In terms of absolute government published figures then the answer to
the first point is yes, a few, (four) but this is due to a change five
years ago in the way the tests are performed. Government published
steady state 56mph tests were routinely in the 50-60mpg bracket 25
years ago.
Real world magazine published road tests show that 80mpg + is
achievable across a whole raft of vehicles. Just last year a team of
journalists drove around 800 miles from the top end of the UK to the
bottom and got more than 100 mpg (in a VW)
Anyway, ignoring the journalists and doing this purely on a scientific
basis I've listed below the 159 models that officially, in European
Union Type Approval Tests, achieved more than 70mpg on the extra-urban
cycle - this being carried out in controlled laboratory conditions on
an vehicle that has previously run for around 2.5 miles from a cold
start.
It consists of roughly half steady-speed driving and the remainder
accelerations, decelerations, and some idling. Maximum speed is 75 mph
average speed is 39 mph and the distance covered is 4.3 miles.
In case you have doubts over the size of the vehicles achieving these
figures, some of them are two seaters, some are four, some are capable
of carrying five median sized Americans with enough space left over
for a week of non stop food ;-)
Emissions? Well in general they all meet the latest emissions
requirements for Europe (EU4) which is a similar level to that
required in the US and Japan.
As for the second point, No, but did you expect it to be.?
Sorry for the appalling formatting but if you want the raw data go to
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/downloads/latest.asp
Engine = cubic capacity in cc divide by 16.384 to get cubic inches
D=Diesel
P = Petrol
P/E = Petrol/Electric
Vauxhall = UK General Motors ;-)
It might look like there are multiple entries but these are usually
for different body styles etc, the raw data which has more columns
shows this better.
Manufacturer Model Engine Fuel MPG
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 70.6
FORD Fusion 2004½ to 2005 Model Year 1399 D 70.6
FORD New Focus 1560 D 70.6
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 70.6
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 70.6
MAZDA Mazda2 (2004 MY) 1399 D 70.6
FORD New Focus 1560 D 70.6
FORD Fusion 2005¼ Model Year Onwards 1560 D 70.6
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2005 1248 D 70.6
FORD Fiesta Pre-2004½ Model Year 1399 D 70.6
NISSAN Micra 1461 D 70.6
FORD Fusion 2004½ to 2005 Model Year 1399 D 70.6
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 70.6
FORD New Focus 1560 D 70.6
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2005 1248 D 70.6
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 70.6
MITSUBISHI Colt 1493 D 70.6
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 70.6
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 70.6
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 70.6
FORD Fusion 2005¼ Model Year Onwards 1560 D 70.6
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2005 1686 D 70.6
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 70.6
FORD Fiesta Pre-2004½ Model Year 1399 D 70.6
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 70.6
NISSAN Micra 1461 D 70.6
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 70.6
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 70.6
MAZDA Mazda2 (2004 MY) 1399 D 70.6
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 70.6
CITROEN C4 1560 D 70.6
FIAT New Punto (2003) 1910 D 70.6
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 70.6
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 70.6
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 70.6
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 70.6
SMART Smart City Coupé Hatchback 698 P 70.6
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 70.6
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 70.6
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 70.6
FORD Fusion 2005¼ Model Year Onwards 1399 D 70.6
SMART Smart City Coupé Hatchback 698 P 70.6
FORD Fusion 2004½ to 2005 Model Year 1399 D 70.6
SMART Smart Cabrio Hatchback 698 P 70.6
SUZUKI Alto 1061 P 70.6
RENAULT Mégane Hatchback / Sport Hatchback 1461 D 70.6
KIA Cerato 1493 D 70.6
CITROEN Xsara Picasso 1560 D 70.6
HYUNDAI Accent 1493 D 70.6
VAUXHALL New Astra, MY2005 1248 D 70.6
SMART Forfour 1493 D 70.6
SUZUKI Swift 1248 D 70.6
SUZUKI Swift 1248 D 70.6
SMART Forfour 1493 D 70.6
RENAULT Modus 1461 D 70.6
RENAULT Mégane Hatchback / Sport Hatchback 1461 D 70.7
RENAULT Mégane Hatchback / Sport Hatchback 1461 D 70.7
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 998 P 72.4
FORD Fusion Pre-2004½ Model Year 1399 D 72.4
FORD Fusion 2004½ to 2005 Model Year 1399 D 72.4
FORD Fusion Plus Pre-2004½ Model Year 1399 D 72.4
FORD Fusion Plus Pre-2004½ Model Year 1399 D 72.4
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2005 1248 D 72.4
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2005 998 P 72.4
MERCEDES-BENZ A-Class (W168) Hatchback 1689 D 72.4
FORD Fusion 2005¼ Model Year Onwards 1399 D 72.4
FORD Fusion Pre-2004½ Model Year 1399 D 72.4
FORD Fusion 2004½ to 2005 Model Year 1399 D 72.4
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 998 P 72.4
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 72.4
FORD Fiesta Pre-2004½ Model Year 1399 D 72.4
SMART Forfour 1493 D 72.4
FIAT New Punto (2003) 1248 D 72.4
RENAULT Mégane Hatchback / Sport Hatchback 1461 D 72.4
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1686 D 72.4
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2005 1248 D 72.4
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1686 D 72.4
SMART Forfour 1493 D 72.4
FORD Fiesta Pre-2004½ Model Year 1399 D 72.4
VAUXHALL Tigra, MY2005 1248 D 72.4
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 72.4
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2005 1248 D 72.4
PEUGEOT 206 SW 1398 D 74.3
FORD Fiesta Pre-2004½ Model Year 1399 D 74.3
TOYOTA Yaris 1364 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2005 1248 D 74.3
FORD Fiesta Pre-2004½ Model Year 1399 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Astra (T98), MY2005 1686 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Astra (T98), MY2005 1686 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Astra (T98), MY2005 1686 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 74.3
PEUGEOT 1007 1398 D 74.3
HYUNDAI Getz 1493 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 74.3
FORD Fiesta 2004½ Model Year Onwards 1399 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2005 1248 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 74.3
CITROEN C3 1398 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 74.3
FIAT New Punto (2003) 1248 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 74.3
SMART Forfour 1493 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 74.3
CITROEN C3 1398 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 74.3
SMART Forfour 1493 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 74.3
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 74.3
FORD Fiesta 2004½ Model Year Onwards 1399 D 74.3
RENAULT Clio 1461 D 74.4
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2005 1248 D 76.3
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 76.3
FORD Fiesta Pre-2004½ Model Year 1399 D 76.3
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2005 1248 D 76.3
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 76.3
FIAT New Panda 1248 D 76.3
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 76.3
FORD Fiesta Pre-2004½ Model Year 1399 D 76.3
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2005 1248 D 76.3
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2005 1248 D 76.3
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 76.3
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 76.3
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2004 1248 D 76.3
CITROEN C3 1398 D 76.3
RENAULT Clio 1461 D 76.4
PEUGEOT 206 1398 D 78.4
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2005 1248 D 78.4
VAUXHALL Corsa, MY2005 1248 D 78.4
AUDI A2 (Standard, SE & Sport) 1422 D 78.5
AUDI A2 (Standard, SE & Sport) 1422 D 78.5
CITROEN C2 1398 D 78.5
VOLKSWAGEN Lupo 1716 D 78.5
VOLKSWAGEN Lupo 1422 D 78.5
RENAULT Clio 1461 D 78.6
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 80.7
VAUXHALL Astra, MY2004 1686 D 80.7
CITROEN C1 1398 D 83.1
HONDA Insight 995 P/ E 94.2
--
"Prometheus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> FORD New Focus 1560 D 70.6
>
> I sure hope so, considering the Ford dealership just sold me one.
> Doesn't get 70 mpg, though. I've got 41 without A/C so far, though-
> that's with the manual transmission and approximately 20% stop-and-go
> city traffic. With the A/C on, it drops to about 32 mpg.
>
That's a big drop with AC. Both my cars have 3.8 liter engines and the
difference is no more than 1 mpg. Neither gets 42 mpg and struggle to get
30 on all highway
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 10:04:45 -0500, Duane Bozarth
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>>
>> "Prometheus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > FORD New Focus 1560 D 70.6
>> >
>> > I sure hope so, considering the Ford dealership just sold me one.
>> > Doesn't get 70 mpg, though. I've got 41 without A/C so far, though-
>> > that's with the manual transmission and approximately 20% stop-and-go
>> > city traffic. With the A/C on, it drops to about 32 mpg.
>> >
>>
>> That's a big drop with AC. Both my cars have 3.8 liter engines and the
>> difference is no more than 1 mpg. Neither gets 42 mpg and struggle to get
>> 30 on all highway
>
>I have no idea wha the hp of the Focus is, but the A/C load is much
>larger fraction in comparison...
HP is not extremely high (I want to say it's 180 off the top of my
head, but that could be wrong), but it is pretty zippy- 0-60 in 7.2
seconds, which is enough for me. Engine is a 2.0L Mazda.
>I've several GM 3.8L and a Chrysler 3.5L...they do similar, but the 3.5L
>is in a 300M which is geared more "peppy" so doesn't do quite as well as
>Mom's LeSabre for mileage, but is <much> more entertaining to drive...
>:)
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 10:05:17 GMT, the opaque Tom Quackenbush
<[email protected]> spake:
>Mark & Juanita wrote:
><snip>
>> The decision for which, I will reiterate, was rendered by the *liberal*
>>block of the Supreme Court with the collusion of the "moderate" Sandra
>>O'Connor (moderate in this usage being defined as a liberal without the
>>brazos to declare themselves so).
><snip>
>
> Can you elaborate on how O'Conner colluded with the "liberal" block
>in the Kelo case?
Since -she- fielded the main dissention paper, it seems doubtful that
he would be able to. O'Connor, Thomas, Scalia, and Rehnquist were the
4 Conservative(+ Mod) dissenters. The Libs pulled this one themselves
and Souter is about to pay for it heavily. His land may be next. Is
this justice, or what?
http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html
The nasty Kelo decision and opinions of the justices is here:
<http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23jun20051201/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-108.pdf>
I'm surprised there haven't been any shootings yet.
- This product cruelly tested on defenseless furry animals -
--------------------------------------------------------
http://diversify.com Web App & Database Programming
I was quite ready to discuss the myths and realities of this (the realities
you are obviously unaware of) but you immidiatly took your prick stance. In
that case, go fuck yourself.
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 00:48:03 GMT, CW <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The carborator was real and did work. The rumor mill distorted the
claims.
> > It did do what it was claimed by the the manufacturer to do.
>
> Please provide a credible cite for this. We'll get into the chemical
> limitations once you do that. "I heard a guy say a friend of a friend
> said" isn't a cite, by the way.
>
"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Swap the transmission too? Kinda hard to see how an engine swap alone
> could do
> that... easy if you changed the tranny as well.
>
How do the new speedometer/odometers work? Same computer as the engine
perhaps? I know I can push a button and instantly change all the gauges
from English to metric and the speedometer needle pops right up to the new
number. .
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 12:10:24 -0500, Hax Planx
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Patrick Conroy says...
>
>> What about that magnet thingy that "aligns" the gasoline molecules for more
>> MPG!?!?!
>>
>>
>>
>> Oh oh... Here come the black helicopters...
>
>I once picked up a hitchhiker who claimed he knew of a guy who bought a
>prototype Chrysler that got 80mpg. Then some guys found him and took
>the car back. You see, the oil companies buy up all the patents for
>high mileage innovations so they never see the light of day. He was the
>most clean-cut and rational of all the three or four hitchhikers I ever
>picked up. I stopped picking up hitchhikers before my 17th birthday
>some twenty years ago.
The manufacturers really don't seem to be doing too badly, as far as I
can see. I picked up an 05 Ford Focus last week because my van was on
it's deathbed, and it's getting 30-35 mpg with the AC running on max
constantly. According to the owner's manual, it will get up to 51 mpg
under optimal circumstances- and it's got almost no emissions. The
downside is that I opened the hood, and realized that I will probably
never be able to work on the thing- it looks more like some kind of
spaceship than any engine I'm accustomed to.
Nice little car, though. Came with one of those Japan-esque
warranties, too. 5yrs/75,000mi bumper-to-bumper, and 100,000mi
warranty on the drive train.
[email protected] (Doug Miller) wrote:
>"Hello! Yes, it works well-but not on all batteries. Firstly, you need to be
>able to access the individual cells. Using a 10-12 volt source battery(9 is
>too weak I've found) you "zap" each dead cell-most are revived and can then be
>charged. Some won't work at all and some don't hold it.
Its nothing to do with the voltage, a supply as low as approx 1.5v
would easily suffice, its current you need - lots of it. Basically you
are removing internal hair like growths that short the positive and
negative sides of the individual cells.
On the "memory effect", if correctly applied it only occurred in *ONE*
specific application back in the 1960's (a communications satellite)
that precisely controlled charge and discharge cycles. A similar
effect is observed by the consumer but its not memory effect.
Read the Nicad faq for the full story (yes I know it says memory
effect does occur but its just semantics)
http://www.repairfaq.org/ELE/F_NiCd_Battery.html
--
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 15:01:41 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Prometheus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> FORD New Focus 1560 D 70.6
>>
>> I sure hope so, considering the Ford dealership just sold me one.
>> Doesn't get 70 mpg, though. I've got 41 without A/C so far, though-
>> that's with the manual transmission and approximately 20% stop-and-go
>> city traffic. With the A/C on, it drops to about 32 mpg.
>>
>
>That's a big drop with AC. Both my cars have 3.8 liter engines and the
>difference is no more than 1 mpg. Neither gets 42 mpg and struggle to get
>30 on all highway
>
I thought so too, but what the heck. I'm just happy with the 42 mpg,
and figure I can deal with the window most of the time to make that
happen!
[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
[...]
>>As long as growth rates were high enough so that there was much to
>>distribute. With growth run into it's limits the gap between rich and
>>poor will open ever farther.
>
> You are proceeding from a mistaken assumption. You observe economic
> stagnation in Europe, and assume that it is the result of economic
> growth having encountered a natural limit of some kind, when in fact
Not really. I see economic growth all around me taking away all that
is nice in the world. The whines you hear about stagnation in Europe
are just from those that cannot get enough...
> the stagnation is the direct, and entirely predictable, result of
> socialism.
As the free market advocats make you believe, to your own
disadvantage.
> Here in America, we do not share the belief that there are any
> limits.
That is well known and bitterly grieved over by the rest of the world
which has to suffer the consequences.
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23
Acid rain killing lakes on the East coast doesn't seem to be
imaginary.
On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 11:05:56 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:
>>There are very few places on the Earth that aren't
>>directly altered by human beings, and while one person using an
>>aerosol can isn't going to a darn thing to the ecology, 6 billion of
>>us doing it sure can.
>>
>
> Evidence that if enough people say the same thing often enough and loud
>enough, people will buy into it, even if the evidence is shaky at best.
On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 11:05:56 -0700, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:
<< Snipped for brevity >>
>>While we may not destroy the planet, or render it absolutely sterile,
>>it's certainly possible that we can make it a worse place to live.
>>That's reason enough to think about using resources sensibly. It may
>>not take that much dramatic change on the part of every person to make
>>a huge difference to the whole. We're still going to need oil, we're
>>still going to have to cut down trees- it's not like we should all go
>>back to living in caves and riding on horseback or any of that
>>nonsense, but there is certainly room for admitting that something is
>>happening and working towards a reasonable solution.
>
> I don't disagree with taking care of things, particularly if for no other
>reason than to keep our local environment pleasant. However, the strident
>extreme is what is being heard, and often acted upon -- that side will
>settle for nothing less than an absolute halt to future development and
>desires reversal of a significant portion of our current way of life (for
>everybody but themselves of course -- the "enlightened ones" must maintain
>their standard of living to assure that the rest of us peons are behaving
>appropriately).
Yeah, I don't go for the arguments that we must stop moving forward-
all I'm saying is that sticking one's head in the sand is just about
as dangerous as the "strident extreme" of complete denial. There are
a lot of things we can and should do as inhabitants of the planet to
make sure we leave the place in a decent condition. Most of them are
common sense, and we've already got some good ideas floating around.
We don't need to all recycle our cars and walk everywhere wearing
sandals, but it's not a bad idea to carpool if you can, and get the
most efficient vehicle that meets your actual needs. If a guy is
hauling truckloads of bricks and lumber on a daily basis, then he
probably needs an SUV. If that same person is merely hauling one
person around, a compact car makes more sense. If they've got a large
family but little cargo, a station wagon or minivan is more sensible
than an armored troop transport. Simple stuff. When a local
businessman gets nabbed by the DNR for the fifth or sixth time because
he's dumping toxic waste into the storm drains, he should be shut down
until he fixes the problem- not given a slap on the wrist because he
provides a lot of tax revenue.
It's less a problem of what is actually happening with the enviroment
than it is a problem of what is actually happening with society, once
you cut through some of the BS. When people stop hiding behind insane
opinions supported by plays on words and mindless yes-men, most folks
tend to behave in a decent manner because they know they have to look
their neighbors in the eyes when they get home. For a simplified
example- if you own a company that produces widget X, and that process
creates 1000 gallons of liquid chlorine waste a week, and you decide
that the most cost-effective way to dispose of it is to dump it out
into the grass behind your building, no one should tolerate you
getting huffy and yelling about how the science is not entirely proven
when the neighborhood demands that you stop it. But a slick spin
doctor can turn even the most egregious offence into something that
sounds reasonable to the average person, and that is the brick wall
everyone keeps hitting thier collective head on. If we had a couple
of retarded kids with limited vocabularies reporting the daily news,
people would gag on on the clarity of the real evil we do to one
another on a daily basis. Instead, we have some doofus with an MBA in
business and a thousand dollar haircut arguing with wild-eyed one-pony
pundits on CNN about what the definition of an obscure term is- while
somehow completely ignoring the orginal issues. Every day yields
thousands of classic examples of sophistry, but that's just how things
are "done", I guess.
Less BS would really help the environment the most- it's getting hard
to see anything with all those stinky methane clouds in the way. It's
a good arguement for wind power- the hot air all around us could
supply all the energy we need.... though the poison it drips in our
ears is worse than any black-lung cancers from inefficiently burning
coal, or completely sterile oceans. It doesn't destroy the greenery,
it destroys our minds, and those are the things we cannot afford to
destroy. Everything else can be figured out with a clear head and a
little honesty.
Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> writes:
[...]
>> Of course leveling the standard of living has to go in both
>> directions: better for the poor, worse for the rich.
>>
>> Globally speaking, all of us in the west are rich.
>
> Well, that change in human nature has eluded all who've tried it so far
I know.
> and likely will continue to do so. Not much use in wishing for what
> will never be...
Guess why I will definedly not have children.
[...]
> That's an aim directly targetted by most developed nations' tax
> structure--but it's not clear that punitively taxing the upper echelon
> actually does anything to actually promote the objective.
Since the punitive tax is so extremely mild the effect is small.
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23
[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
[...]
>
> I prefer a society in which everyone's standard of living improves.
So would I if I thought it were possible. But consider that the
standar of living cannot be measured by metreial wealth alone.
[...]
> Capitalism has proven to be a remarkably effective tool for doing just that.
As long as growth rates were high enough so that there was much to
distribute. With growth run into it's limits the gap between rich and
poor will open ever farther.
> Compare modern Europe to feudal Europe for an example.
Today with no formal division between a well of nobility and a
rightless population but rather a graduation of differences with the
lure of everyone hope to get richer personaly there is less chance of
a revolution than at the end of feudal reign.
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23
[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
[...]
> I was responding to Dr. Hannappel's somewhat skewed view of the value of
> American economic growth to the rest of the world. It was American economic
I am not so much considering American economic growth, on our small
planet we should always consider all of the planet and all of the
people. Of course America as leader in economics (and waste of energy)
and influencing the way we think everywhere is the single most
important country if something is to change.
> growth that enabled the United States to defeat the Axis powers in WWII; it
> was American economic growth that enabled the United States to fight, and win,
> the Cold War - and I didn't even mention the Marshall Plan (also fueled by
> American economic growth).
True. Economic growth worked and enabled a vast array of very good
things. I do not deny that. I just say that it can't go on like this
forever, and the less we plan for the era after the growth the worse
it will hit.
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23
Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> writes:
> Doug Miller wrote:
>>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Juergen Hannappel <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >To answer you last question: Yes...
>> >The economy needs a restructuring so that it provides work and supply
>> >for all *without economic growth*, otherwise there will be no future
>> >worth living in.
>> >
>> In order for that to work, there must also be no population growth. How do you
>> propose to achieve *that*?
>
> Plus, I doubt the folks in the third world countries will continue to be
> content with that scenario even if their populations <were> to somehow
> magically become stable...
Of course economic growth in the hird world is still necessary, but in
the developped part the situation is different; and having an economy
whose main interest is growth also in the third world will not work in
the long term.
How to stabilize populations I have no viable idea other than
education, ironically also economic growth, awareness-raising and
abandoning ploicies like the global gag rule.
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 15:58:03 +0200, Juergen Hannappel
<[email protected]> wrote:
>> What is your <realistic and achievable> solution to raising economic
>> status of those on the lower rungs in both the developed countries as
>> well as the rest of the world other than growth? Wishing for the
>> "haves" to slide back is both unrealistic and counter-productive.
>
>None. This is why I don't have children and why I also do not really
>engage in political action: I think it's futile, we will be
>assimilated.
I hit send a little too fast, there. Just wanted to throw in that I'm
not in agreement with you and trying to spur you on with that quote,
just pointing out that if you've got a belief, it's senseless to sit
on your hands and mope about it. We've got our way of doing things in
the US, and Germany has it's own as well- what's good for the goose
may not be good for the gander. No reason to assume that you must let
power brokers "assimilate" you.
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 15:58:03 +0200, Juergen Hannappel
<[email protected]> wrote:
>None. This is why I don't have children and why I also do not really
>engage in political action: I think it's futile, we will be
>assimilated.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing.
Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> writes:
[...]
> Well, I don't think there's any <significant> difference in US policy
> and other Western economies other than style. And certainly the
True.
> Chinese, Indians, Brazilians, etc., are going to overarch anything we're
> doing now in the very near term. Not to even mention the past abuses in
> former Iron Curtain industrial areas...
This is why in order to change economic workings its first necessary
to undo the connection of wellbeing and economic growth in our minds.
Also the american way of life is sill presented as the way to go and
therefore influences all the world.
[...]
> What is your <realistic and achievable> solution to raising economic
> status of those on the lower rungs in both the developed countries as
> well as the rest of the world other than growth? Wishing for the
> "haves" to slide back is both unrealistic and counter-productive.
None. This is why I don't have children and why I also do not really
engage in political action: I think it's futile, we will be
assimilated.
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23
[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
> In article <[email protected]>, Juergen
> Hannappel <[email protected]> wrote:
>>[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
>>> Here in America, we do not share the belief that there are any
>>> limits.
>>
>>That is well known and bitterly grieved over by the rest of the world
>>which has to suffer the consequences.
>>
> You know, it really pisses me off to hear western Europeans whining
> about America.
>
> Where the hell would you have been in the 1940s, without America's
> belief that there are no limits? This nation came out of the worst
[... WWII (not the saw blade) and cold war arguments]
>
> And this is the thanks we get.
You can get any thanks you want, I am really grateful that you helped
end the Nazi regime and keep Stalinism at bay. Thanks.
But. All those past merits are no excuse to ruin the world now, and I
sincerely disbelieve that the economic and ecological policies pursued
in the US are realy in the best interest of the American People in the
long run. I do not want any harm to come to America (and the rest of
the world), and that is why I think you cannot go on as if there were
no limits to growth.
Reconsider. It's for your own best.
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23
Dave Hinz <[email protected]> writes:
[...]
> Can you provide examples of 80mpg production vehicles please?
VW Lupo 3L TDI, sadly now out of production because it was too
expensive for so small a car and VW thought it better to produce
nonsense products like the Touareg or the 1001PS Bugatti, the
development cost of which could have probably helped to maket the 3L
Lupo to larger volume and lower price...
>
>> Just to prove what can be done the world record for a vehicle capable
>> of carrying a human is currently 10703 - yes you read that right, ten
>> thousand, ten followed by four zeros, miles per gallon.
>
> And is that vehicle roadworthy?
No...
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23
"Morris Dovey" <[email protected]> writes:
[...]
> We urgently need to develop alternative energy sources and rethink
> (especially) our building, production, and transportation
> technologies. Even 200 mpg cars and 100 mpg trucks won't solve the
> problem, or even just keep us from freezing in the winter.
Even more urgently we need to scale down our need for production and
transportation, or at least put a stop to it's growth, wich otherwise
eats up all efficiency gains.
[...]
> <rant>
> It makes me crazy that people seem so willing to say: "What do you
> expect from me - /I/ can't do anything," and expect that politicians
> will /legislate/ a (no cost) solution. Have we really dumbed down that
> much?
> </rant>
To answer you last question: Yes...
The economy needs a restructuring so that it provides work and supply
for all *without economic growth*, otherwise there will be no future
worth living in.
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23
Duane Bozarth <[email protected]> writes:
[...]
> Well, in actuality it <isn't> so different except in relative starting
> points---there are still sizable populations of disadvantaged in every
> country of which I am aware and I know of no magic bullet to make those
> on the lower rungs to become content to remaining there in
> perpetuity....
Of course leveling the standard of living has to go in both
directions: better for the poor, worse for the rich.
Globally speaking, all of us in the west are rich.
>
> W/ apologies to Garrison Keeler, your scenario asks for a situation
> where ".. all families' incomes are above average."
We should aim at getting average and median closer togeher.
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23
[email protected] (Doug Miller) writes:
[...]
>
> I prefer a society in which everyone's standard of living improves.
So would I if I thought it were possible. But consider that the
standard of living cannot be measured by material wealth alone.
[...]
> Capitalism has proven to be a remarkably effective tool for doing just that.
As long as growth rates were high enough so that there was much to
distribute. With growth run into it's limits the gap between rich and
poor will open ever farther.
> Compare modern Europe to feudal Europe for an example.
Today with no formal division between a well of nobility and a
rightless population but rather a graduation of differences with the
lure of everyone hope to get richer personaly there is less chance of
a revolution than at the end of feudal reign.
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23
"Prometheus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> We're still going to need oil, we're
> still going to have to cut down trees- it's not like we should all go
> back to living in caves and riding on horseback or any of that
> nonsense, but there is certainly room for admitting that something is
> happening and working towards a reasonable solution.
I agree with everything you've said except it's going to be a real problem
changing the global consciousness. There's far too many people with the
selfish attitude that they're not going to be here when the world turns into
an unsalvageable garbage dump so why should they care? Then you have the
people at the top of the economic food chain who are not going to relinquish
their wealth without a great deal of kicking and screaming.
At the same time, you've got the have-not population of the planet (and
there's an overwhelming lot of them) who are aspiring to the lifestyle of
the haves. If the have-nots ever come to approach even partially the
economic status of the haves, the current destruction rate of the planet
will increase exponentially.
And lastly, there's the large segment of our population who believe science
will find a way out.
Me, I believe friendly aliens will visit earth and freely offer their
advanced science to fix all our woes.
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> As far as the view that "this small planet" is desperately impacted by
>> the actions of those within it; this seems to be hubris of a high order.
>> Can one mess up one's local environment? Absolutely, 19'th century London
>> is a prime example of that, as are some of our own industrial cities at the
>> beginning of the industrial revolution. Can we "destroy the planet"? That
>> is highly debateable; consider the amount of energy and pollution that just
>> *one* volcanic explosion can produce compared to the output of an
>> industrialized nation.
Ah, a Rush Limbagh fan. Can we destroy the planet? Probably not- but
I've no doubt that we can make it a rather unpleasant place to live.
I used to buy the line about global warming being junk science, but
it's a little late in the game to keep pretending it isn't there- go
watch the weather channel for a bit- the climate has changed quite a
bit already. There are very few places on the Earth that aren't
directly altered by human beings, and while one person using an
aerosol can isn't going to a darn thing to the ecology, 6 billion of
us doing it sure can.
While we may not destroy the planet, or render it absolutely sterile,
it's certainly possible that we can make it a worse place to live.
That's reason enough to think about using resources sensibly. It may
not take that much dramatic change on the part of every person to make
a huge difference to the whole. We're still going to need oil, we're
still going to have to cut down trees- it's not like we should all go
back to living in caves and riding on horseback or any of that
nonsense, but there is certainly room for admitting that something is
happening and working towards a reasonable solution.
Mark & Juanita wrote:
<snip>
> The decision for which, I will reiterate, was rendered by the *liberal*
>block of the Supreme Court with the collusion of the "moderate" Sandra
>O'Connor (moderate in this usage being defined as a liberal without the
>brazos to declare themselves so).
<snip>
Can you elaborate on how O'Conner colluded with the "liberal" block
in the Kelo case?
R,
Tom Q.
--
Remove bogusinfo to reply.
Gene T wrote:
> Has anyone been brave enough to pay for info on how to "revive"
> cordless toll batteries that no longer hold a charge?
NiCad batteries develop a "memory". If they are charged before being
fully discharged, they will ultimately sort of "think" that they should
be charged sooner than before. One way to remedy that is to *fully*
discharge the battery then charge. No idea if that's what is being done
by the device the guy is peddling.
--
dadiOH
____________________________
dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico