"Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong - Page 53

02-09-2007, 04:58 AM

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 20:17:59 -0500, "R.H. Allen" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
wrote:

>Evidently they did, as apparently it was founded by former members of
>the Missouri Synod and explicitly accepts papal primacy and papal
>infallibility:
>
>[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
>Of course, it's Wikipedia, but if you click through the sources on the
>church's own site I think you'll get pretty much the same picture
>painted by Wikipedia.

Look, I can join the ELCA and then leave and start a Church of
Demonology Today. That does NOT make it an offshoot of the ELCA. If a
group of disgruntled church members leave a church and start another,
then it is not a splinter of the prior church.

The only way to make it so is if they were a recognized splinter group
within the church and separated on clearly stated grounds. Generally
this assumes that they retain most of the teachings of the previous
church and have a clearly defined reason for leaving.

This is a group that for whatever reason decided to be Protestant
Roman Catholics. That ain't the Missouri Synod, which has one of the
most stringent non-ecumenical stands period. You either agree with
them or you don't.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

02-09-2007, 06:04 AM

Bill Baka wrote:
> R.H. Allen wrote:
>> Deputy Dumbya Dawg wrote:
>>
>>> I may agree with you if this limo was in space but here on earth with
>>> gravity your argument does not hold water. The more weight (mass
>>> affected by the force of gravity) the more friction and the more
>>> energy to maintain the velocity.
>>
>> No. You're neglecting inertia. A moving object tends to keep moving,
>> and if it's heavy it's harder to stop than if it's light.
>
> That may be over simplifying the problem, but Newton and those other
> scientists did get it right, and that was taught way back in grade
> school.

Agreed, but it was sort of my response to the other poster's "you're
neglecting friction" comment. Would probably have been more obvious if I
had actually put it next to that comment, though.... :-)

> If this is done in neutral it will determine the effects of weight on
> the tires combined with the actual rolling resistance. Do it with the
> transmission in gear and you will really notice the difference of engine
> drag.

Sure, but if the two hypothetical vehicles are truly identical aside
from their weight, the engine drag should be the same for both. I'm just
trying to simplify the problem to show the other poster why (1) weight
results in negligible gasoline consumption when maintaining constant
speed and (2) a heavier car will travel farther in a coast, which is the
opposite of what he claimed.

>> -- which would produce a force of 620N. Over the course of a mile,
>> that would require 32,000J of extra energy compared to the lighter car
>> to maintain constant speed.

I made a bit of an error there -- the heavier car would require 480kJ of
extra energy compared to the lighter car, not 32kJ (assuming 600N and
300N are required to keep the heavy and light cars, respectively, at
constant speed). Assuming 30 mpg and 25% conversion efficiency, that's
40MJ/mile for the light car and 41.92MJ/mile for the heavy one, so the
added weight produces a 4.8% increase in fuel consumption. Considering
that we're talking about a *doubling* in weight -- essentially a fully
loaded one-ton pickup that itself only weighs a ton, or about a third of
what such vehicles usually weigh -- that's still pretty small. A more
realistic figure for such a vehicle would be more like 1.5% more
gasoline (though of course the whole analysis is so simplified that the
only real-world conclusion you can draw is that weight has a negligibly
small effect).

>> Let's say the lighter car gets 30 mpg and both cars transfer energy
>> from the gasoline to the road at 25% efficiency. There are 120 million
>> joules in a gallon of unleaded gasoline, so 40 million joules are
>> burnt each mile. The extra 32,000J the heavier car requires each mile
>> correspond to 128,000J/mile of extra gasoline. Therefore, the extra
>> weight degrades the car's mileage to 29.9 mpg. The difference of 0.1
>> mpg may as well be zero considering that it's an overestimate to begin
>> with, and that other factors such as driving habits and regular
>> vehicle maintenance (or lack thereof) make a far greater difference in
>> mileage than that.
>
> I was initially talking about a constant 65 MPH on cruise control or a
> very calculating driver who knows how to hold the speed with very little
> throttle jockeying.

I suspect something like rain-slickened roads or a difference in the
direction of the wind are enough to cause more than a 0.1 mpg difference
in mileage on repeated trials in either of those cases. The point being
that no matter how good your test conditions, I just don't think weight
is going to make a noticeable difference in gas mileage at constant speed.

>> Now if you factor in aerodynamic drag, both vehicles -- being
>> identical aside from weight -- will face the same drag force. They
>> will expend the same amount of energy overcoming it to maintain a
>> constant speed. However, if you let your foot off the gas and coast to
>> a stop, you'll find the heavier car coasts farther. I refer you back
>> to Netwon's second law to understand why.
>
> That applies very well to a car doing 65 MPH, but the place where you
> will find the answer to the amount of rolling resistance by the tires is
> around 20--30 MPH. The bleed off of speed with my big Chrysler was about
> 40 to 45 seconds with wind resistance being a lesser factor.
> Anyone who doubts the effect of the air should take a car out and try it
> for themselves.

I agree completely. Using the figures at:

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

which themselves apparently come from Car & Driver magazine, I get 243N
drag for the 1999 Honda Insight at 65 mph and 36N at 25 mph. It weighs
834kg, so wind resistance will dominate rolling resistance at 65 mph,
and vice versa at 25 mph. The Hummer H2 at 25 mph faces as much drag as
the Insight at 55 mph, but because of its much greater weight you still
get more rolling resistance than wind resistance at that speed.

> BTW, the slick looking car may be less aerodynamic than the brick
> looking car. Why? Take a look at the underside and see how much junk the
> air on the bottom has to go through.

Well, that's not the *only* reason -- there's often a big difference
between what people think is slick-looking and what is actually slick
from an aerodynamic perspective. In general, a bulbous front end that
narrows toward the rear (a bit like the cross-section of an airplane
wing) will produce the best aerodynamics, but that's not a good look for
a sports car. Cars that look like they're designed to knife through the
air are often called slick, but generally have poor aerodynamics (though
it's often done on purpose to produce downforce for better traction,
which explains why Formula 1 race cars have far worse drag coefficients
than school buses and Hummers). If I'm not mistaken, the General Motors
EV1 has to this day the lowest drag coefficient ever measured on a
production vehicle.

That said, the junk on the bottom of the car makes a big enough
difference that an acquaintance of mine once considered starting a
business based on covering that stuff up to improve aerodynamics. He
abandoned the idea -- I think he concluded there wouldn't be a big
enough market in his area to make the business viable, but I don't
recall the details.

02-09-2007, 06:20 AM

Deputy Dumbya Dawg wrote:
> "Bill Baka" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
> news:c6Pyh.19782: >
>
> : Side note, since this is a bicycle group that got
> contaminated.
> : Talking about efficiency, compare a regular bike with
> a streamlined
> : recumbent and the recumbent will always be faster
> with the same rider
> : fitness level. Why? Less air to push. Starting,
> stopping, and hills make
> : for a great equalizer.
> : Bill Baka
>
> I am on the renewable energy site. Since few roads are
> level or straight around here, there is a lot more
> positive and negative acceleration required driving
> these rolling hills. Around Atlanta the heavier the car
> the more fuel it will use.

City driving is always different from freeway driving because you do a
lot of starting and stopping -- conditions under which weight makes a
*huge* difference. Hills, in theory, make no difference whatsoever if
your starting and ending elevations are the same, since whatever energy
is expended on the way up is recovered on the way down. Of course, in
reality it doesn't quite work out that way for a number of reasons, not
the least of which is the tendency of drivers to drive inefficiently on
hills.

Having driven in Atlanta, though, perhaps I need to take back what I
said about freeway driving -- the freeways there are more stop-and-start
than the surface streets are! And I think any driver attempting to drive
efficiently up and down hills there will probably be run off the road in
a heartbeat....

02-09-2007, 06:34 AM

On Feb 4, 7:50 pm, Wayne Pein <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com> wrote:

>
> A 2 ft wide bicycle fits just fine no matter how narrow the lane. A
> bicycle driver need only ride right in the center of the lane. The roads
> are full of slow vehicles such as stopped busses, motor vehicles
> completely stopped at stop lights, parked delivery vehicles, front
> loaders, bicycles, etc. Motorists can deal with it.
>
> Wayne

Great idea, but not what the dinosaur wants. He dreams of coming back,
like in this children book...

"If Dinosaurs Came Back : Bernard Most
A young boy dreams of an easier life for himself and others through
the use of dinosaurs for transportation."

I guess this a popupar book among SUV drivers. Bikes must fend for
themselves.

02-09-2007, 06:46 AM

On Feb 5, 12:36 am, Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> donquijote1954 wrote:
> > On Feb 3, 4:35 pm, Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
> >>> So the connection is that the same Christian fundamentalists are
> >>> causing Armageddon!
> >> That isn't too unreasonable since they are also the ones whom God (the
> >> pope) told to have as many kids as possible so they would need a big van
> >> (SUV) to carry them all over the place.
>
> > I see. So it may be God that made people to ride SUVs. But since we
> > know that the Devil is disguised as God, we may as well see Satan at
> > work. You know, there's so much camouflage in religious afffairs...
>
> > HOW GOD WAS TEMPTED
>
> > One day the Devil, having heard about that incredible story of turning
> > the other cheek, slapped God in order to make him fall into
> > temptation... And He, without hesitation, turned the other cheek...
> > Another day, escalating the provocations, the Devil pitched Him a
> > brick, but God only smiled... Until, tired of wasting his time, the
> > Devil had an idea: He would dress like another god...
>
> > And that's how God, who wouldn't tolerate other gods, became so mad
> > that He declared war against the Devil...
>
> So now Earth is a war zone???- Hide quoted text -

Not only that. It's a jungle!!!

The Devil is disguised as God creating wars left and right. And the
sheep who follow God are therefore following the Devil! What a
confusing world this is. I think the animals of the Kalahari know
everything about it. And cylists know it too. Never trust the predator!

02-09-2007, 06:51 AM

On Feb 5, 12:26 pm, Wayne Pein <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com> wrote:

>
> > mind waiting in line for a light to change so much as they do a slow
> > vehicle blocking them, much worse still one that sometimes gets in their
> > way but also passes by them when they are standing still in line waiting
> > for the light to change!
>
> Yea, those morons should not be allowed to drive either.

Cyclists feed peanuts to the dinosaur. Stupid drivers feed him juicy
stake. Guess who gets preferential treatment...

02-09-2007, 07:24 AM

On Feb 5, 11:13 pm, Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

> Wow. I actually have to agree with you on that one. It is kind of silly
> for people to be squabbling over the finer points of religion if they
> all resolve to believing in Christ. Baptists, Protestant, and Catholic
> all have basically the same goals, but different interpretation.
> Why fight?

I think the fight because in the Bible there's a lot of fighting too.
Then came Jesus and demonstrated that Nonviolence was the way to go.
But they were used to the violence anyway so Jesus will wipe 'em out
in his second coming. He may just use a banana to drive his point of
"no guns." "Stick 'em up" he will say while drawing the banana.

02-09-2007, 07:33 AM

On Feb 6, 12:36 am, "Fred G. Mackey" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> Bill Baka wrote:
> > The automotive engineers know this but they are paid to shut up and
> > design cars that sell. Joe Consumer does not want to have to downshift
> > to pass someone. That gives the somewhat slow Joe a sense of power under
> > the hood, which in turn sells cars.
>
> I'm no expert on cars, engines, or transmissions, but I do miss my old
> car with the 5-speed manual transmission.
>
> I saw nothing wrong with downshifting to get a little more acceleration
> - make that a LOT more. The car I drive now is similar in many respects
> - better in quite a few, but the fact that it's automatic offers me few
> advantages beyond being able to drink coffee while in stop and go traffic.
>
> That wasn't a problem when I had a manual transmission - I learned to
> drink my coffee between shifts.

Ban automatic cars (except for the handicap) and the stupid and
dangerous will go the way of the dinosaur. Whoever is not fit to drive
stick, should ride a bike --or ride the bus. One-speed bikes should be
all right though.

02-09-2007, 07:44 AM

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 15:31:04 GMT, "no spam" <no@spam.net> wrote:

....
>
>Poverty is almost always a result of bad choices. People choose to not work
>in school. People choose to have kids when they know they can't afford
>them. People choose to drop out of school. People choose to sell drugs to
>make a fast buck. People choose to screw up their lives why should I be
>FORCED to pay to "fix" their problems?
>

When I was a kid I attended PS 3 in the Bronx (NYC). In the middle of
second grade my parents scraped together enough money to move us to
Queens, and a better school district. They evaluated me and were going
to place me in the "slow" classes because I was already way behind
reading level. My parents talked them into putting me in the regular
classes and within a few months I was ahead of reading level and going
into the "gifted" classes.

My parents attended an open school night and the principal asked them
just what was going on in that school in the Bronx that I kid like me
was behind reading level. I don't know that they could answer the
question.

That was over 40 years ago. I suspect my life would be very different
if I wasn't lucky enough to get out of PS 3. Your argument that
poverty is almost always a result of bad choices is simplistic. It
takes a very special person to climb out of a crappy environment. It
happens, but lots of good people get stuck.

I don't know the answer. We have a system that benefited enormously
from having a virgin continent to harvest, yet we have staggering
poverty and really awesomely bad schools. They're worse now than my
experience so long ago.

Providing money for doing nothing doesn't seem to work. Letting people
starve or be homeless isn't something I can stand either. I'll just
repeat that I don't know the answer.

02-09-2007, 09:53 AM

On 9 Feb 2007 08:33:46 -0800, "donquijote1954"
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>On Feb 6, 12:36 am, "Fred G. Mackey" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>> Bill Baka wrote:
>> > The automotive engineers know this but they are paid to shut up and
>> > design cars that sell. Joe Consumer does not want to have to downshift
>> > to pass someone. That gives the somewhat slow Joe a sense of power under
>> > the hood, which in turn sells cars.
>>
>> I'm no expert on cars, engines, or transmissions, but I do miss my old
>> car with the 5-speed manual transmission.
>>
>> I saw nothing wrong with downshifting to get a little more acceleration
>> - make that a LOT more. The car I drive now is similar in many respects
>> - better in quite a few, but the fact that it's automatic offers me few
>> advantages beyond being able to drink coffee while in stop and go traffic.
>>
>> That wasn't a problem when I had a manual transmission - I learned to
>> drink my coffee between shifts.
>
>Ban automatic cars (except for the handicap) and the stupid and
>dangerous will go the way of the dinosaur. Whoever is not fit to drive
>stick, should ride a bike --or ride the bus. One-speed bikes should be
>all right though.

I've always preferred manual but they really are impractical in the
big city. Plus, I managed to break an ankle in 1997 while at a big
getaway with about 50 people (I landed very awkwardly from my mountain
bike). Only one person out of those 50 could drive my car home. My
next car was automatic.