In article ,
what says...
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 11:42:46 -0500, the renowned Keith Williams
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 11:03:19 -0500, the renowned Keith Williams
wrote:

In article .com,
says...
In the original post I was speaking in Fahrenheit not Celcius or
Kelvin. An increase from 160 to 200 is 25 %, no matter where you are in
the world. Jeez, lighten up.........

All right. My temperature scale is (F-160)*5/4. Now what's the
(percentage) rise? Hint: It's still 6.4%.

Jeez, wise up.....

Is this still a sci group (or a practical group in the case of rcm)???

Heat loss is a function of temperature *difference* to the ambient, so
you are all wrong. So there. It's more like 100%. Of course heat
engines get more efficient when they have a larger temperature
difference to work with, so the total heat loss, all other things
being equal, would be less.

Engine (Carnot Cycle) efficiency is related to absolute temperature
difference, not some man-made scale.

Yes. Though I think an IC gas engine is Otto cycle, no?

In undergrad physics we were taught Carnot, but they may have been
lieing to give us a reason to care. ;-)

Temperature difference is only one
factor-- a Maglite(tm) flashight bulb runs much hotter than a range
element, but uses only a tiny fraction of the power.

Because its temperature is *higher* more energy is radiated in the
visible range.

And because it's so much smaller and better insulated less total
energy per unit time is radiated, convected or conducted.

The point is that more of the energy in in the visible range, thus
more efficient. How you make it hotter is a design detail.

It's not really that hard to figure out.

There are people out there who think big trucks are less efficient
than small trucks just because they look huge and guzzle more gas.
Of course when you calculate the gasoline consumption per unit of
freight (volume or weight) you find the bigger ones are better if you
can keep them reasonably full.

Sure, I wouldn't want to pay the fuel bill for a DE locomotive
pulling 100 coal cars (unless I was getting paid to haul coal). Of
all the bad ways to do things, some are less bad.

Was the "mileage" of 747s (?) discussed in this group today? They
drink a lot of fuel too, though not too bad when you consider
moving 400 people the same distance by other means.

--
Keith

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Steve B" wrote in message
news:iVmIf.38880$JT.22959@fed1read06...

Point is, global warming won't really affect anyone for such a long time
that they won't have to worry about it in their (our)(your)(my) lifetime,
and all this sniveling is boring and annoying.

So, be bored and annoyed. The next generation may not be bored. They'll
wonder why so many inane arguments showed up in a discussion of great
importance.

They'll think their parents were insane. To an alarming degree, they
probably will be right.

--
Ed Huntress



Just as our fathers and forefathers were ignorant about asbestos, mercury,
................. need I go on? I could for a very long time.

I believe this happens every generation, and the current one is too busy
doing the "me,me,me" thing to really notice.

History repeats itself.

Steve

Ed Huntress wrote:

All else being equal, light cars typically get their best mileage at just
over 50 mph, and heavy ones somewhere between 45 and 50 mph. There are many
factors involved, including engine design.

At least you need to be able to run in the highest gear, or you lose.

Engine design obvously is key here. Air resistance scales with the
square of the speed; rolling resistance is a constant. Engine will
probably be square law as well on the resistance side.

Things like pumping loss and efficiency of unfilled cyclinders change
this; diesel behaves very different from gasoline for that reason.

In any case, even getting peak efficiency at 50 mph tells us not that the
car has high efficiency at higher speeds, but that the car has poor
efficiency at lower speeds, mostly for the reasons we've discussed.

True; but if you can't buy a better car, it is useful to know what speed
to preferably run it at.


Thomas

In article ,
says...


So, assuming no dispute and solid science, why is it that the term "Climate
Change" is becoming the preffered term these days??

Because it's easier to pretend that "climate change" has nothing to do
with industry, oil, fossil fuels etc.? Some PR maven probably cooked it
up as part of a disinformation campaign.

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 17:17:25 -0500, phorbin
wrote:

In article ,
says...


So, assuming no dispute and solid science, why is it that the term "Climate
Change" is becoming the preffered term these days??

Because it's easier to pretend that "climate change" has nothing to do
with industry, oil, fossil fuels etc.? Some PR maven probably cooked it
up as part of a disinformation campaign.

It's so the leftist weenies will still have their position covered
when the climate gets colder ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Liberalism is a persistent vegetative state

Keith Williams wrote:

snip

Was the "mileage" of 747s (?) discussed in this group today?

Not to my knowledge but I've seen several posts elsewhere today about fuel
efficiency.

They
drink a lot of fuel too, though not too bad when you consider
moving 400 people the same distance by other means.

It's not a 747 but Airbus claim their average is 3 litres per 100 passenger km. (
about 100 UK mpg or ~ 80 US mpg )

Graham

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 15:55:18 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 17:17:25 -0500, phorbin
wrote:

In article ,
says...


So, assuming no dispute and solid science, why is it that the term "Climate
Change" is becoming the preffered term these days??

Because it's easier to pretend that "climate change" has nothing to do
with industry, oil, fossil fuels etc.? Some PR maven probably cooked it
up as part of a disinformation campaign.

It's so the leftist weenies will still have their position covered
when the climate gets colder ;-)

...Jim Thompson


Well, duh! If they guessed wrong, they'd lose their grants and have to
get jobs. This nomenclature reduces that probability by 50%.

John

Ed Huntress wrote:

All else being equal, light cars typically get their best mileage at just
over 50 mph, and heavy ones somewhere between 45 and 50 mph. There are many
factors involved, including engine design.

Quite possibly so for artificial tests where it's possible to maintain a
constant speed.

One key to low fuel consumption is the absence of braking and acceleration. It's
rare IME to be able to travel at those kinds of speeds without losing energy in
braking from time to time on typical roads. It's worse still at town speeds.

A consequence of this is that in the real world I actually see reduced fuel
comsumption ( compared to a lower average speed ) when I can drive 'freely' at
an average speed of around 60 mph, typically topping out at ~ 70 mph.

Graham

phorbin wrote:

In article ,
says...

So, assuming no dispute and solid science, why is it that the term "Climate
Change" is becoming the preffered term these days??

Because it's easier to pretend that "climate change" has nothing to do
with industry, oil, fossil fuels etc.? Some PR maven probably cooked it
up as part of a disinformation campaign.

How about because it's a more accurate description ? It isn't as simple as plain
'warming'. If the UK loses the Gulf Stream we'll be damn sight colder !

Graham

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 17:17:25 -0500, phorbin
wrote:

In article ,
says...


So, assuming no dispute and solid science, why is it that the term "Climate
Change" is becoming the preffered term these days??

Because it's easier to pretend that "climate change" has nothing to do
with industry, oil, fossil fuels etc.? Some PR maven probably cooked it
up as part of a disinformation campaign.

It's so the leftist weenies will still have their position covered
when the climate gets colder ;-)

...Jim Thompson

The UK won't be any warmer if the Gulf Stream packs up. Quite the reverse.

Climate change is a far more accurate term.

Graham

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 23:16:31 +0000, Pooh Bear
wrote:


phorbin wrote:

In article ,
says...

So, assuming no dispute and solid science, why is it that the term "Climate
Change" is becoming the preffered term these days??

Because it's easier to pretend that "climate change" has nothing to do
with industry, oil, fossil fuels etc.? Some PR maven probably cooked it
up as part of a disinformation campaign.

How about because it's a more accurate description ? It isn't as simple as plain
'warming'. If the UK loses the Gulf Stream we'll be damn sight colder !

Graham


The jet stream has not dipped down into Arizona in months... the
result... 118 days without rain so far, and more moderate
temperatures... "three bears" style, just right ;-)

If this persists, our east coast and England and parts of Europe are
going to be damned cold.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Liberalism is a persistent vegetative state

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 23:16:31 +0000, Pooh Bear
wrote:

phorbin wrote:

In article ,
says...

So, assuming no dispute and solid science, why is it that the term "Climate
Change" is becoming the preffered term these days??

Because it's easier to pretend that "climate change" has nothing to do
with industry, oil, fossil fuels etc.? Some PR maven probably cooked it
up as part of a disinformation campaign.

How about because it's a more accurate description ? It isn't as simple as plain
'warming'. If the UK loses the Gulf Stream we'll be damn sight colder !

Graham


The jet stream has not dipped down into Arizona in months... the
result... 118 days without rain so far, and more moderate
temperatures... "three bears" style, just right ;-)

If this persists, our east coast and England and parts of Europe are
going to be damned cold.

...Jim Thompson

Can you educate me as to the influence of the jet stream on your local weather ? I'm
unfamiliar with this effect.

Graham

Speaking of Climate change. Five years ago we were in pre-drought
conditions and it was that way for 2-3 years (some towns were in
drought status). We didn't get the spring rain and summer was very dry.
Then along came the rain in October 2002 and we have had nothing but
full to capacity reservoirs since (even in late summer). They were
talking about tapping the Hudson (even more than done now), flooding
lowlands to build more reservioirs and building moratoriums. This
weather is very screwy.... I do remember what someone mentioned earlier
about the ice age coming again (as they sat in the gas line in 1974
listening to the radio).

It's so the leftist weenies will still have their position covered
when the climate gets colder ;-)

...Jim Thompson

The UK won't be any warmer if the Gulf Stream packs up. Quite the reverse.

Climate change is a far more accurate term.

Graham

In article , Frithiof Andreas Jensen
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

Unfortunately, producing the hydrogen is not that efficient. No free
lunch,
once again.


It is fairly efficient cracking a hydrocarbon to produce H2 - improving the
efficiency of the use of fossil fuel by about 100 % also has utility.

I think the main drawback there is that the H2 does not have most of the
available energy of a hydrocarbon.

Let me pick two - propane out of a hat, and methane it has more hydrogen
as a percentage of content than any other hydrocarbon.

Heats of combustion (to CO2 and water vapor, hope I got this right):

Propane: 486.6 kcal/mole H2 from propane: 231.3 kcal for 4 moles

Methane: 192.2 kcal/mole H2 from methane: 115.7 kcal/mole
(60%)

Not counting that it takes some energy to crack these to get the
hydrogen. Looks like you have to use the carbon for something however.

Messing around with pure hydrogen is silly and represents the typical
eco-loon thinking I.M.O - there is a vast infrastructure for handling
hydrogen when wrapped in a liquid but there is none for pure H2.

My impression was that main use of this was for when electricity is
mainly generated by means other than burning fuels. The alternative -
could largely win out - is rechargeable batteries.

- Don Klipstein )

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 23:16:31 +0000, Pooh Bear
wrote:

phorbin wrote:

In article ,
says...

So, assuming no dispute and solid science, why is it that the term
"Climate
Change" is becoming the preffered term these days??

Because it's easier to pretend that "climate change" has nothing to do
with industry, oil, fossil fuels etc.? Some PR maven probably cooked
it
up as part of a disinformation campaign.

How about because it's a more accurate description ? It isn't as simple
as plain
'warming'. If the UK loses the Gulf Stream we'll be damn sight colder !

Graham


The jet stream has not dipped down into Arizona in months... the
result... 118 days without rain so far, and more moderate
temperatures... "three bears" style, just right ;-)

If this persists, our east coast and England and parts of Europe are
going to be damned cold.

...Jim Thompson

Can you educate me as to the influence of the jet stream on your local
weather ? I'm
unfamiliar with this effect.

Graham

it dips down, and influences where the storms from the pacific off
california go. if it dips down into the US too far from the west cost, the
storms which are getting dragged along with it miss the rockies, meaning
that az/co/nm don't get any snow/rain.

regards,
charlie
http://glassartists.org/chaniarts

"Steve B" wrote in message
news:cUrIf.38906$JT.9288@fed1read06...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Steve B" wrote in message
news:iVmIf.38880$JT.22959@fed1read06...

Point is, global warming won't really affect anyone for such a long
time
that they won't have to worry about it in their (our)(your)(my)
lifetime,
and all this sniveling is boring and annoying.

So, be bored and annoyed. The next generation may not be bored. They'll
wonder why so many inane arguments showed up in a discussion of great
importance.

They'll think their parents were insane. To an alarming degree, they
probably will be right.

--
Ed Huntress



Just as our fathers and forefathers were ignorant about asbestos, mercury,
................ need I go on? I could for a very long time.

I believe this happens every generation, and the current one is too busy
doing the "me,me,me" thing to really notice.

History repeats itself.

What happens, in this case, is that people celebrate their ignorance by
laughing at real problems they don't understand. I suspect that you're
right, global warming will be this generation's asbestos ignorance.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 23:35:23 +0000, Pooh Bear
wrote:


Jim Thompson wrote:

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 23:16:31 +0000, Pooh Bear
wrote:

phorbin wrote:

In article ,
says...

So, assuming no dispute and solid science, why is it that the term "Climate
Change" is becoming the preffered term these days??

Because it's easier to pretend that "climate change" has nothing to do
with industry, oil, fossil fuels etc.? Some PR maven probably cooked it
up as part of a disinformation campaign.

How about because it's a more accurate description ? It isn't as simple as plain
'warming'. If the UK loses the Gulf Stream we'll be damn sight colder !

Graham


The jet stream has not dipped down into Arizona in months... the
result... 118 days without rain so far, and more moderate
temperatures... "three bears" style, just right ;-)

If this persists, our east coast and England and parts of Europe are
going to be damned cold.

...Jim Thompson

Can you educate me as to the influence of the jet stream on your local weather ? I'm
unfamiliar with this effect.

Graham

The normal jet stream pattern in winter dips down into northeast
Arizona creating a rotating wind pattern that sucks moisture from the
Gulf of Mexico, producing rain.

This year it has stayed uniformly north until into northern
Illinois/Michigan. In addition a stationary low has sat over Sonora
all this time, blocking cold air from the north and moisture from the
southeast.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Liberalism is a persistent vegetative state

"Zak" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

All else being equal, light cars typically get their best mileage at
just
over 50 mph, and heavy ones somewhere between 45 and 50 mph. There are
many
factors involved, including engine design.

At least you need to be able to run in the highest gear, or you lose.

Engine design obvously is key here. Air resistance scales with the
square of the speed; rolling resistance is a constant. Engine will
probably be square law as well on the resistance side.

Engine is very complex. Fuel atomization and distribution; effective
compression ratio; cylinder/head/piston heat loss; percentage of rotational
cycle to reach peak pressure; etc. The equation, as shown in the old MIT
two-book series, _The Internal Combustion Engine in Theory and Practice_, is
quite long.


Things like pumping loss and efficiency of unfilled cyclinders change
this; diesel behaves very different from gasoline for that reason.

Diesel behaves differently because it is always running at or close to peak
design compression ratio.


In any case, even getting peak efficiency at 50 mph tells us not that
the
car has high efficiency at higher speeds, but that the car has poor
efficiency at lower speeds, mostly for the reasons we've discussed.

True; but if you can't buy a better car, it is useful to know what speed
to preferably run it at.

True enough. On the average, around 50 mph.

--
Ed Huntress

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Ed Huntress wrote:

All else being equal, light cars typically get their best mileage at
just
over 50 mph, and heavy ones somewhere between 45 and 50 mph. There are
many
factors involved, including engine design.

Quite possibly so for artificial tests where it's possible to maintain a
constant speed.

One key to low fuel consumption is the absence of braking and
acceleration. It's
rare IME to be able to travel at those kinds of speeds without losing
energy in
braking from time to time on typical roads. It's worse still at town
speeds.

A consequence of this is that in the real world I actually see reduced
fuel
comsumption ( compared to a lower average speed ) when I can drive
'freely' at
an average speed of around 60 mph, typically topping out at ~ 70 mph.

You can see reduced fuel consumption at any speed where you don't have
braking and acceleration. It peaks at around 50 mph for most cars.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 19:07:19 -0500, the renowned "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Ed Huntress wrote:

All else being equal, light cars typically get their best mileage at
just
over 50 mph, and heavy ones somewhere between 45 and 50 mph. There are
many
factors involved, including engine design.

Quite possibly so for artificial tests where it's possible to maintain a
constant speed.

One key to low fuel consumption is the absence of braking and
acceleration. It's
rare IME to be able to travel at those kinds of speeds without losing
energy in
braking from time to time on typical roads. It's worse still at town
speeds.

A consequence of this is that in the real world I actually see reduced
fuel
comsumption ( compared to a lower average speed ) when I can drive
'freely' at
an average speed of around 60 mph, typically topping out at ~ 70 mph.

You can see reduced fuel consumption at any speed where you don't have
braking and acceleration. It peaks at around 50 mph for most cars.

Include the value of your time vs. gas cost and I wonder what is the
optimal speed? A fair bit higher, obviously, assuming your time in the
car is not otherwise useful, and assuming you'd otherwise be doing
something useful, not just wasting time posting on usenet or
something.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 23:35:23 +0000, Pooh Bear
wrote:


Jim Thompson wrote:


On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 23:16:31 +0000, Pooh Bear
wrote:


phorbin wrote:


In article ,
m says...


So, assuming no dispute and solid science, why is it that the term "Climate
Change" is becoming the preffered term these days??

Because it's easier to pretend that "climate change" has nothing to do
with industry, oil, fossil fuels etc.? Some PR maven probably cooked it
up as part of a disinformation campaign.

How about because it's a more accurate description ? It isn't as simple as plain
'warming'. If the UK loses the Gulf Stream we'll be damn sight colder !

Graham


The jet stream has not dipped down into Arizona in months... the
result... 118 days without rain so far, and more moderate
temperatures... "three bears" style, just right ;-)

If this persists, our east coast and England and parts of Europe are
going to be damned cold.

...Jim Thompson

Can you educate me as to the influence of the jet stream on your local weather ? I'm
unfamiliar with this effect.

Graham


The normal jet stream pattern in winter dips down into northeast
Arizona creating a rotating wind pattern that sucks moisture from the
Gulf of Mexico, producing rain.

This year it has stayed uniformly north until into northern
Illinois/Michigan. In addition a stationary low has sat over Sonora
all this time, blocking cold air from the north and moisture from the
southeast.

...Jim Thompson
Yeah, we had one big storm back in Sept/Oct, and nothing since then.
Here in Borrego they are very disappointed, esp. the tourist folks. Our
biggest draw are the wildflowers that bloom in the spring here. We are
actually getting a small bloom now, but with no additional rain, it will
be pretty small this year. Actually, we could use a little rain!

Charlie

In article , Todd Rich wrote in part:

Did you bother to even read the Oak Ridge report I linked to? Here is a
highlight for you:

:Based on the predicted combustion of 2516 million tons of coal in the
:United States and 12,580 million tons worldwide during the year 2040,
:cumulative releases for the 100 years of coal combustion following 1937
:are predicted to be:

:U.S. release (from combustion of 111,716 million tons):
:Uranium: 145,230 tons (containing 1031 tons of uranium-235)

:Thorium: 357,491 tons

:Worldwide release (from combustion of 637,409 million tons):

:Uranium: 828,632 tons (containing 5883 tons of uranium-235)

:Thorium: 2,039,709 tons

Note that this is estimated totals for 35 years in the future, but for a
typical plant in 1982:

:For the year 1982, assuming coal contains uranium and thorium
:concentrations of 1.3 ppm and 3.2 ppm, respectively, each typical plant
:released 5.2 tons of uranium (containing 74 pounds of uranium-235) and
:12.8 tons of thorium that year

Keep in mind that with the uranium being about 99.3% U-238 which has a
halflife only a few times that of U-235, most of the radioactivity is from
the 238 and not the 235.

Also, a curie of uranium or thorium is not merely a curie of radioactive
material. U-238's first decay product is Th-234, which has a halflife of
24 days. So, wherever you have a curie of U-238, within a few months you
approach having a curie of Th-234 in addition to the curie of U-238.
(U-235 also does something like this, although it produces Th-231 -
halflife 25.6 years. Where you put a curie of U-235, in several decades
you approach also having a curie of Th-231.)

Neither of these thorium isotopes are much of the thorium tonnage
mentioned above, since that would be Th-232.

Th-234 decays to Pa-234, which has a halflife of about a week. So
wherever you have a curie of Th-234 you soon have a curie of Pa-234. That
becomes U-234, which thankfully has a halflife of about a quarter million
years. So a curie of pure U-238 soon becomes 3 curies of radioactive
material but then stays that way for a while - but in about a million
years you have approaching 11 curies (7 curies of shortlife alpha emitters
and 4 curies of shortlife beta emitters) of the decay products between
U-234 and Pb-206.

Th-231 decays to Pa-231, with a halflife of 34,300 years. So a curie of
U-235 becomes close to 2 curies of radioactive material within a century,
but largely levels off from there - unless you count the 100,000 year
range when that approaching-a-curie of Pa-231 will have approaching-9
curies of short-life decay products (6 of this 9 being alpha emitters and
3 of this 11 being beta emitters) on the way to Pb-207.

The main-tonnage Th-232 goes through 6 alpha decays and 4 beta decays on
the way to Pb-208, with the logest halflife product in between 1.9 years.
So within a decade, you approach having 10 curies of radioactive decay
products wherever you put a curie of Th-232.

That 5.16 or so tons of U-238 per year from a typical coal-fired power
plant amounts to 3.55 millicuries of U-238, plus 7.1 millicuries of
soon-to-materialize decay products.

That 74 pounds of U-235 per year from a typical coal-fired power plant
amounts to another .16 millicurie - plus .16 millicure of a
soon-to-materialize decay product.

The 12.8 tons of thorium amounts to another 2.9 millicuries - and the 29
millicuries of decay products.

Looks like a typical coal fired power plant emits into the environment
(including within-a-decade-appearing decay products) about 42-43
millicuries annually.
I don't know what the average annual leakage from nuclear plants and
waste storage facilities are, but I surely doubt the NRC would let me dump
42 millicuries per year of anything into the atmosphere, oceans, rivers,
landfills, etc.
It appears to me that if a nuclear plant near me leaked 43 millicuries
of anything into a river or into the air, it would be news.

- Don Klipstein )

"Spehro Pefhany" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 19:07:19 -0500, the renowned "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Ed Huntress wrote:

All else being equal, light cars typically get their best mileage at
just
over 50 mph, and heavy ones somewhere between 45 and 50 mph. There
are
many
factors involved, including engine design.

Quite possibly so for artificial tests where it's possible to maintain
a
constant speed.

One key to low fuel consumption is the absence of braking and
acceleration. It's
rare IME to be able to travel at those kinds of speeds without losing
energy in
braking from time to time on typical roads. It's worse still at town
speeds.

A consequence of this is that in the real world I actually see reduced
fuel
comsumption ( compared to a lower average speed ) when I can drive
'freely' at
an average speed of around 60 mph, typically topping out at ~ 70 mph.

You can see reduced fuel consumption at any speed where you don't have
braking and acceleration. It peaks at around 50 mph for most cars.

Include the value of your time vs. gas cost and I wonder what is the
optimal speed? A fair bit higher, obviously, assuming your time in the
car is not otherwise useful, and assuming you'd otherwise be doing
something useful, not just wasting time posting on usenet or
something.

'Dunno. How much do you make per hour? d8-)

Efficiency isn't everything, to be sure. I like those 2000-mpg economy-test
winners, but my back would be thrown out driving one, by the time I got to
work.

--
Ed Huntress

In .com, carneyke wrote:

Speaking of Climate change. Five years ago we were in pre-drought
conditions and it was that way for 2-3 years (some towns were in
drought status). We didn't get the spring rain and summer was very dry.
Then along came the rain in October 2002 and we have had nothing but
full to capacity reservoirs since (even in late summer). They were
talking about tapping the Hudson (even more than done now), flooding
lowlands to build more reservioirs and building moratoriums. This
weather is very screwy.... I do remember what someone mentioned earlier
about the ice age coming again (as they sat in the gas line in 1974
listening to the radio).

The weather sometimes gets into ruts that last a few years to even about
a decade. Examples:

1. The "Dust Bowl" years with quite a bit of warmth in the USA as well as
the more-famous drought. Many US states have alltime high temperature
records from an early July 1936 heatwave that remain. Philadelphia's
warmest January by a significant margin was that of 1932. Many lesser
records such as local high temperature records for many dates in these
years also make these years stand out.

2. Hurricanes sometimes end up in "ruts":

a) Hurricanes disproportionately avoided the East Coast above the NC-VA
border between 1900 and the famous 1944 storm.

b) In the early 1950's and the past few years hurricanes picked on
southern Florida.

c) In the late 1950's and the early 1960's the East Coast farther north
got more than their fair share of major hurricanes.

d) From the 1970's to the early 1990's the USA largely got hit less
by huricanes than it usually did.

3. The mid-Atlantic/Northeast (at least Philadelphia) had unusual lack of
extreme heat and cold from the late 1960's to the mid 1970's.

4. The Northeast and Mid-Atlantic had a bunch of severe winters from the
late 1970's into the early-mid 1980's.

5. The Midatlantic/Northeast had a string of really hot summers from
1991-1995. Philadelphia 2 or 3 times in that period broke a "hottest
summer" record, after the summer of 1988 tied an old one.

- Don Klipstein )

Low posting air head.

Martin
Martin Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
NRA LOH & Endowment Member
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder



Pooh Bear wrote:

"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote:


Practice makes perfect.


Top-posting NRA fathead !

Graham


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

I guess you are the weather expert - all Hurricanes feed on warm water.
They are born on the warm water in the tropics.

Maybe when Iceland generates some really hot spots will Nor-Easterners spawn
into North Atlantic Hurricanes and hunt poor ole Pooh Bear down.

Martin

Martin Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
NRA LOH & Endowment Member
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder



Pooh Bear wrote:

John Popelish wrote:


Don Klipstein wrote:
(snip)

Looks like some recent record-big blizzards did not stop the world from
having its hottest year on record as a continuation of a recent-decades
upward trend, and less lignificantly the USA from having its hottest
January on record - should one more blizzard make much difference?

Global warming does not necessarily imply less snow, since warmer air
holds more moisture than colder air, allowing it to deliver more snow.
Only when global warming brings a particular location above the
freezing point, does it imply rain instead of snow. Expect places
that normally have had dry, cold winters to have warmer winters with
lots more snow. Till it gets lots warmer.


The warming is best measured by sea temp not air temp. There's a lot more
energy tied up in seawater than the atmosphere.

Note also that Katrina was as bad as it was due to higher sea temps in the
Atlantic and Gulf that also ensured that the air was moisture-laden thus
helping to increase the severity of the Hurricane.

Graham





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

In article ,
Spehro Pefhany wrote:

Include the value of your time vs. gas cost and I wonder what is the
optimal speed? A fair bit higher, obviously, assuming your time in the
car is not otherwise useful, and assuming you'd otherwise be doing
something useful, not just wasting time posting on usenet or
something.

When I include the value of my time, the optimun speed is 80 mph

--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

Don,
As usual, you have done an excellent job replying to a post ! I have
never read any of your replies containing insults. That is very
difficult to do, you must have very thick skin !!
Don Klipstein wrote:
In .com, carneyke wrote:

Speaking of Climate change. Five years ago we were in pre-drought
conditions and it was that way for 2-3 years (some towns were in
drought status). We didn't get the spring rain and summer was very dry.
Then along came the rain in October 2002 and we have had nothing but
full to capacity reservoirs since (even in late summer). They were
talking about tapping the Hudson (even more than done now), flooding
lowlands to build more reservioirs and building moratoriums. This
weather is very screwy.... I do remember what someone mentioned earlier
about the ice age coming again (as they sat in the gas line in 1974
listening to the radio).

The weather sometimes gets into ruts that last a few years to even about
a decade. Examples:

1. The "Dust Bowl" years with quite a bit of warmth in the USA as well as
the more-famous drought. Many US states have alltime high temperature
records from an early July 1936 heatwave that remain. Philadelphia's
warmest January by a significant margin was that of 1932. Many lesser
records such as local high temperature records for many dates in these
years also make these years stand out.

2. Hurricanes sometimes end up in "ruts":

a) Hurricanes disproportionately avoided the East Coast above the NC-VA
border between 1900 and the famous 1944 storm.

b) In the early 1950's and the past few years hurricanes picked on
southern Florida.

c) In the late 1950's and the early 1960's the East Coast farther north
got more than their fair share of major hurricanes.

d) From the 1970's to the early 1990's the USA largely got hit less
by huricanes than it usually did.

3. The mid-Atlantic/Northeast (at least Philadelphia) had unusual lack of
extreme heat and cold from the late 1960's to the mid 1970's.

4. The Northeast and Mid-Atlantic had a bunch of severe winters from the
late 1970's into the early-mid 1980's.

5. The Midatlantic/Northeast had a string of really hot summers from
1991-1995. Philadelphia 2 or 3 times in that period broke a "hottest
summer" record, after the summer of 1988 tied an old one.

- Don Klipstein )

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 11:15:51 GMT, the renowned Nick Hull
wrote:

In article ,
Spehro Pefhany wrote:

Include the value of your time vs. gas cost and I wonder what is the
optimal speed? A fair bit higher, obviously, assuming your time in the
car is not otherwise useful, and assuming you'd otherwise be doing
something useful, not just wasting time posting on usenet or
something.

When I include the value of my time, the optimun speed is 80 mph

Sounds low. I figure optimum is when (fuel consumption in units per
distance) * (distance covered per hour) * (cost per unit fuel in
dollars per unit) = hourly income.

Using mpg fuel consumption:

miles per hour = ((income in $/hr) * mpg)/($ per gallon)

Or in metric:

km/h = 100* (income in $/hr)/((liters/100km) * ($/liter))


(Of course, fuel consumption is not constant with speed, but one can
iterate or use some other simple method to find the answer.)



Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 11:15:51 GMT, Nick Hull
wrote:

In article ,
Spehro Pefhany wrote:

Include the value of your time vs. gas cost and I wonder what is the
optimal speed? A fair bit higher, obviously, assuming your time in the
car is not otherwise useful, and assuming you'd otherwise be doing
something useful, not just wasting time posting on usenet or
something.

When I include the value of my time, the optimun speed is 80 mph

Mine is 110MPH ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Liberalism is a persistent vegetative state

In article ,
Spehro Pefhany wrote:
[....]
Using mpg fuel consumption:

miles per hour = ((income in $/hr) * mpg)/($ per gallon)


Since the fuel use rises as the square of speed, in the range we are
talking about, we can use the MPG at 60 and write:

Y = (I * MPG60)/((Y/60)^2 * P)

if I did my math right:

Y = cubert( I * 3600 * M / P)

whe

Y = speed in MPH
I = income in $/hr
M = MPG at 60
P = price in $/gal

Tryin with some easy values:

Y = cubert(100 * 3600 * 30 / 3) = cubert(3.6E3) =150+a little


"You mean this is highway 80 and the speed limit is 65! Well in that
case, I'm gald you didn't catch me on the 205 last night."

--
--
forging knowledge

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 15:27:22 +0000 (UTC), the renowned
(Ken Smith) wrote:

In article ,
Spehro Pefhany wrote:
[....]
Using mpg fuel consumption:

miles per hour = ((income in $/hr) * mpg)/($ per gallon)


Since the fuel use rises as the square of speed, in the range we are
talking about, we can use the MPG at 60 and write:

Y = (I * MPG60)/((Y/60)^2 * P)

if I did my math right:

Y = cubert( I * 3600 * M / P)

whe

Y = speed in MPH
I = income in $/hr
M = MPG at 60
P = price in $/gal

Tryin with some easy values:

Y = cubert(100 * 3600 * 30 / 3) = cubert(3.6E3) =150+a little

Yes, that sounds reasonable enough.

OTOH, if you want to make it 55mph, you have to assume someone working
at Walmart wages and driving a poorly tuned 72 Caddy or something like
that. Gas is still way too cheap for it to be worth conserving from an
economics pov.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

Pooh Bear wrote:

Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:02:01 +0000, Pooh Bear wrote:

Todd Rich wrote:

And if they would allow the reprocessing of the fuel rods it would cut
down dramatically on the amount of waste produced.

In the UK the pollution associated with nuclear energy comes primarily from the
*re-processing* !

And while the
remaining waste is much hotter, it lasts for signifigantly less time.

You *are* joking ? How on earth can you make that statement ? The scary stuff
doesn't just 'go away' !

Yes, that's the point - that's exactly what it does, eventually. Remember
"half-life"? ;-)

Actaully it never 'goes awy' at all. There's always some radioactivity there.

Btw. I meant reprocessing doesn't make the radioactivity go away.

I came to the conclusion that most self-professed "Ecologistas" are
deliberate idiots. One large clue was when I carried a survey meter on a
backpacking trip into Sequioa National Park and waved it through the
smoke from a campfire some Ecologistas had built from fallen old-growth
wood. The meter went nuts, of course, but none of them _wanted_ to
comprehend why. Then I showed them that sitting on granite boulders
irradiated their nether regions...

BTW, global temperatures regularly go through wide excursions, often
lasting much longer than the miniscule periods Ecologistas want to talk
about (say 1800-today). Frinst, the dinosaurs got along quite nicely for
dozens of megayears with the global temperature a good five degrees
warmer than today's most pessimistic average estimates. Frinst, at the
beginning of the Triassic, global temps averaged 50-60F.

Granted there was a lot of desertification, but there was only one
continent straddling the equator for much of that period. Today's
continental arrangement proffers different global heat distribution.

And of course, dinos didn't have air conditioning. ;)

Besides, the Solar Constant isn't; the sun has steadily gotten
brighter since it first lit up, and is going through a short-term
"bright" phase despite the current relatively low sunspot count (cf.
"Maunder Minimum").

"Chicken Little" is short-sighted.


Mark L. Fergerson

While traveling from Lake Isabella to Fresno on Rt 155 (?), passing
through some of the most gorgeous / desolate country came upon a sign.
The sign read something like "No burning woodstoves from January -
April". Can't remember the exact dates on the sign but it struck me
funny. This area gets loads of snow and being in the country thought
these people must have heated with wood. There must have been a riot
when they were told they could no longer burn wood. I guess smog is a
major problem way up in those mountains. I picked up some large pine
cones (they were everywhere) to bring home (being from NY never seen
them that big). My cousin in Modesto told me they would have arrested
me if I was caught picking up cones in the National Park. I was outside
the park when I picked up the cones (Thank God). I thought this is one
beautiful state (CA) but it's worse than NY when it comes to the
environment.

I came to the conclusion that most self-professed "Ecologistas" are
deliberate idiots. One large clue was when I carried a survey meter on a
backpacking trip into Sequioa National Park and waved it through the
smoke from a campfire some Ecologistas had built from fallen old-growth
wood. The meter went nuts, of course, but none of them _wanted_ to
comprehend why. Then I showed them that sitting on granite boulders
irradiated their nether regions...

In article ,
Mike Patterson wrote:

snip--

Nevermind the fact that a single volcanic eruption can dump more
"greenhouse" gases into the atmosphere in a week than the human race
has produced since the first hominoid climbed out of the trees,

this does not agree with the literature i have read
which states that the total CO2 emitted by volcanoes is approximately
150 times less than from human activity. a useful paper is

Gerlach, T.M., 1991, Present-day CO2 emissions from volcanoes:
Transactions of the American Geophysical Union (EOS), v. 72, p. 249,
and 254-255.

the immediate effect of major volcanic eruptions is cooling
due to sulfate aerosols, which was pointed out by James Hansen
as early as 1990 or so...

pinatubo was the verification of this hypothesis, infact the cooling from
pinatubo was exactly as predicted by climate models, crude as they were
back then...

sidd

In article ,
(Ken Smith) wrote:

In article ,
Spehro Pefhany wrote:
[....]
Using mpg fuel consumption:

miles per hour = ((income in $/hr) * mpg)/($ per gallon)


Since the fuel use rises as the square of speed, in the range we are
talking about, we can use the MPG at 60 and write:

Y = (I * MPG60)/((Y/60)^2 * P)

if I did my math right:

Y = cubert( I * 3600 * M / P)

whe

Y = speed in MPH
I = income in $/hr
M = MPG at 60
P = price in $/gal

Tryin with some easy values:

Y = cubert(100 * 3600 * 30 / 3) = cubert(3.6E3) =150+a little


"You mean this is highway 80 and the speed limit is 65! Well in that
case, I'm gald you didn't catch me on the 205 last night."

Your calculations failed to include the increased failure rate at high
speed and the increased shakedown from the cops

--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 23:02:46 GMT, the renowned Nick Hull
wrote:

In article ,
(Ken Smith) wrote:

In article ,
Spehro Pefhany wrote:
[....]
Using mpg fuel consumption:

miles per hour = ((income in $/hr) * mpg)/($ per gallon)


Since the fuel use rises as the square of speed, in the range we are
talking about, we can use the MPG at 60 and write:

Y = (I * MPG60)/((Y/60)^2 * P)

if I did my math right:

Y = cubert( I * 3600 * M / P)

whe

Y = speed in MPH
I = income in $/hr
M = MPG at 60
P = price in $/gal

Tryin with some easy values:

Y = cubert(100 * 3600 * 30 / 3) = cubert(3.6E3) =150+a little


"You mean this is highway 80 and the speed limit is 65! Well in that
case, I'm gald you didn't catch me on the 205 last night."

Your calculations failed to include the increased failure rate at high
speed and the increased shakedown from the cops

cue Kraftwerk

In article oaKIf.32815$jR.27721@fed1read01, Mark Fergerson wrote in part:

BTW, global temperatures regularly go through wide excursions, often
lasting much longer than the miniscule periods Ecologistas want to talk
about (say 1800-today). Frinst, the dinosaurs got along quite nicely for
dozens of megayears with the global temperature a good five degrees
warmer than today's most pessimistic average estimates. Frinst, at the
beginning of the Triassic, global temps averaged 50-60F.

Granted there was a lot of desertification, but there was only one
continent straddling the equator for much of that period. Today's
continental arrangement proffers different global heat distribution.

And of course, dinos didn't have air conditioning. ;)

Besides, the Solar Constant isn't; the sun has steadily gotten
brighter since it first lit up, and is going through a short-term
"bright" phase despite the current relatively low sunspot count (cf.
"Maunder Minimum").

I have heard of a roughly 110 year "supercycle" or roughly 10 of the 11
year cycles, and solar output varies basically inversely with the sunspot
count. I think the minimum was around the sunspot peak of around 1970,
maybe around the sunspot peak of around 1980 but I am not positive.

I think it is worth comparing global temperatures to where they were 110
years ago.

- Don Klipstein )

Naturally, the trees want carbon and must have it.
Forest fires feed trees in that case. CO2 and carbon micro particles are absorbed.
It also helps build Reefs - CO2 cycle. Don't tell a eco type that - who drinks
more acid materials then they should.

Martin

Martin Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
NRA LOH & Endowment Member
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder



carneyke wrote:
While traveling from Lake Isabella to Fresno on Rt 155 (?), passing
through some of the most gorgeous / desolate country came upon a sign.
The sign read something like "No burning woodstoves from January -
April". Can't remember the exact dates on the sign but it struck me
funny. This area gets loads of snow and being in the country thought
these people must have heated with wood. There must have been a riot
when they were told they could no longer burn wood. I guess smog is a
major problem way up in those mountains. I picked up some large pine
cones (they were everywhere) to bring home (being from NY never seen
them that big). My cousin in Modesto told me they would have arrested
me if I was caught picking up cones in the National Park. I was outside
the park when I picked up the cones (Thank God). I thought this is one
beautiful state (CA) but it's worse than NY when it comes to the
environment.


I came to the conclusion that most self-professed "Ecologistas" are
deliberate idiots. One large clue was when I carried a survey meter on a
backpacking trip into Sequioa National Park and waved it through the
smoke from a campfire some Ecologistas had built from fallen old-growth
wood. The meter went nuts, of course, but none of them _wanted_ to
comprehend why. Then I showed them that sitting on granite boulders
irradiated their nether regions...



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

In article ,
Spehro Pefhany wrote:
[...]
that. Gas is still way too cheap for it to be worth conserving from an
economics pov.

It depends a lot on how you save it and what you consider the real price.

A tune up on a poorly performing car will often pay for its self etc.

If we didn't use much oil, the various trouble makers in the middle east
wouldn't have enough money to cause much trouble. The added cost of the
needed military really should be considered part of the cost of the energy
from oil. Doing so, I'm fairly sure would make other sources look better
and saving energy look better too.



--
--
forging knowledge