"Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong - Page 54 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

02-09-2007, 10:04 AM

dgk <dgk@somewhere.com> wrote:
> 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.

Not really, its clearly still about the choices the parents make.

> It takes a very special person to climb out of a crappy environment.

No it doesnt. All it takes is parents with enough of a clue
to have noticed the poor reading level and do something
about it themselves, separate to what the school does.

Thats the reason the jews have managed to do well for
their kids even in the most obscene social environments.

Its also the reason the chinese have got the same result too.

> It happens, but lots of good people get stuck.

Because of the choices their parents made.

> I don't know the answer.

The answer is for the parents to get involved in the
raising of their kids and not leave it all to the school.

> We have a system that benefited enormously from having
> a virgin continent to harvest, yet we have staggering poverty

Depends entirely on how you define poverty. Even the absolute
dregs of the US like say the 'homeless' leave the absolute
dregs of say India or Africa for dead living standards wise.

> and really awesomely bad schools.

And that is ALWAYS about choices. Home schooling works.

> They're worse now than my experience so long ago.

And the choices are FAR better with the internet available all now.

> Providing money for doing nothing doesn't seem to work.

Yep, it only encourages the dregs to keep doing that from generation to generation.

> Letting people starve

That never happens in north america.

> or be homeless isn't something I can stand either.

That is always by choice in north america.

> I'll just repeat that I don't know the answer.

Just accept the fact that there will always be dregs in every society
and that the standard of living of the dregs in north america leaves
the standard of living of the dregs in india or africa for dead.

Now that north american society has little use for the totally unskilled
who dont want to work, there is no answer for the worst of the dregs.
And they wont even die out from AIDS like they may well do in africa either.

02-09-2007, 10:13 AM

dgk <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> 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

Me too.

> but they really are impractical in the big city.

Nope.

> 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.

Its silly buying a car on the basis of such a rare event.

02-09-2007, 10:26 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.
>
> peace
> dawg.
>
>
I give in to your logic that hilly terrain will use more gas, but that
might (maybe) be a place where a gas--electric hybrid could save gas. If
the down hill parts are steep enough to need the brakes then a hybrid
could recharge on those parts. Those hills really do mess up the mileage.
There probably won't be a car that can do it all in the near future.
Bill Baka, on the bicycles.misc side of things.

02-09-2007, 10:52 AM

R.H. Allen wrote:
> 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.

You're right, he's wrong. Not even complicated to think about.
>
>>> -- 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).

My brain is thinking that measuring Joules in terms of power might not
be correct. I believe the definition of a Joule is a 1 Farad capacitor
charged to 1 volt, but I can't remember if it is a valid way to measure
power. That part of my schooling was 40 years ago. I may need a
refresher course, but your logic seems rational.
>
>>> 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.

I agree with that part, especially since I run my car tires at 40 PSI to
keep the drag down and for cornering. This is due to the fact that I had
a tire pull itself off the wheel rim at about 25 MPH when I was a
teenager. I think in that case I was running at about 24 PSI to get a
smoother ride. After that I decided that feeling all the little bumps
was a better choice than having a tire come loose at maybe 65 MPH.
>
>>> 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.

That sounds about right since the wind resistance calculation is that if
you double the speed you quadruple the power needed. I don't have a
formula so I am just going on memory. It also might depend on the shape
of the car due to cavitation effects.
>
>> 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.

I thought of the exact same thing, and again decided against it because
Joe consumer just wouldn't understand. The Renaults I used to own had
full under carriage paneling and were very slick on the bottom. I
managed to get 54 MPG with one by just running a constant 55 MPH, but
I'm reasonably certain that better gearing on the engine might have put
it into the 60 MPG category. That was always a sore point with me that
the engine was buzzing at about 4,000 RPM on the highway if I did 65.
Seem like a lifetime ago now. It could go 50 miles for a quarter's worth
of gas, back when a quarter actually bought a whole gallon.
Sorry about the longish reply but I am stuck inside due to nasty rain
and drivers who don't know how to handle a car on water--oil roads.
Bill Baka

02-09-2007, 10:55 AM

Bill Baka wrote:
> Rod Speed wrote:
>> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>>> Bad choices is electing politicians who don't have a clue, or those
>>> who should have retired long ago. I didn't invent welfare but those
>>> that are on it have obviously learned how to milk the system.
>> That will happen with any welfare system with some of them.
>>
>>> Now that we have a glut of school aged children
>> No you dont.
>>
>>> everybody is complaining about not enough schools,
>> No they arent.

They've been complaining about crowded schools since I was a child. We
managed to learn to read even in what I discovered later was a
lower-middle-class school with 35 students in each class. Between then
and now, something has gone wrong with either teaching or teachers and
it has nothing to do with the number of kids/class.

>>> yet nobody is addressing the main issue.
>> Wrong again.
>
> You must not live anywhere near California.
> My grandkids have to attend schools that are not only substandard but
> where guns have been found on students.

My grandkids live in an affluent (not rich, but containing mostly those
monster tract homes that are going for $3/4 million now) district. They
have "lockdown" drills. That's what's supposed to happen when a weapon
or other threat is discovered. The kids drop flat on the floor and the
staff turns out the lights. I need to find out more...

--
Cheers, Bev
===================================
New sig on order, watch this space.

02-09-2007, 10:58 AM

On Feb 6, 6:09 pm, Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

> > I think having them ride a bike, the vehicle Jesus would have ridden,
> > would be more fun than having them pollute the planet and support a
> > war with their SUVs and then declare that the end is coming soon...
>
> Once again, someone gets an "Amen".

OK, then attend "Anonymous Cyclists." There's no salvation other than
the Earth, and the only god is Mother Earth, who's been usurped by the
Chauvinist God and his SUV crowds. Ride until you die.

Amen for Mother Earth!

02-09-2007, 11:10 AM

donquijote1954 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.
>
That's a thought, but then my daughter would never drive since she
basically can't walk and chew gum at the same time. She is fine with an
automagic tranny though. My stepdaughter (source of grandkids) makes up
for it by trying to get rubber shifting to third gear. I would prefer to
ride with my real daughter than my maniac stepdaughter.
For myself I like being in control of what gear I want to ride in, and
if I want to be in 5th at 25 MPH, I do it. The car makes 25 MPH with no
trouble except that I have to down shift to accelerate. The automatic
KIA flat ass won't hit top gear and converter lock up until about 45 MPH
so it runs about 2,000 RPM when it could be maybe 1,400.
I like shifting.
Bill Baka

02-09-2007, 11:13 AM

dgk wrote:
> 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.

Impractical is a stick in San Francisco. They put stop signs at the top
of a hill and unless you have a hand operated emergency brake you can
roll back and get the car behind you. That's the one place where I don't
want to have a stick.
Bill Baka

02-09-2007, 11:18 AM

The Real Bev wrote:
> Bill Baka wrote:
>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>> Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>>>> Bad choices is electing politicians who don't have a clue, or those
>>>> who should have retired long ago. I didn't invent welfare but those
>>>> that are on it have obviously learned how to milk the system.
>>> That will happen with any welfare system with some of them.
>>>
>>>> Now that we have a glut of school aged children
>>> No you dont.
>>>
>>>> everybody is complaining about not enough schools,
>>> No they arent.
>
> They've been complaining about crowded schools since I was a child. We
> managed to learn to read even in what I discovered later was a
> lower-middle-class school with 35 students in each class. Between then
> and now, something has gone wrong with either teaching or teachers and
> it has nothing to do with the number of kids/class.
>
>>>> yet nobody is addressing the main issue.
>>> Wrong again.
>>
>> You must not live anywhere near California.
>> My grandkids have to attend schools that are not only substandard but
>> where guns have been found on students.
>
> My grandkids live in an affluent (not rich, but containing mostly those
> monster tract homes that are going for $3/4 million now) district. They
> have "lockdown" drills. That's what's supposed to happen when a weapon
> or other threat is discovered. The kids drop flat on the floor and the
> staff turns out the lights. I need to find out more...
>
Please do.
One of the grade schools around here had a guy shooting students at an
elementary school. That wasn't even a school related thing but some
looney who went over the edge. He just drove up and started shooting
through a chain link fence.
I would put a pointer to the newspaper but out hick town paper wants
money to go through the archives.
Bill Baka

02-09-2007, 11:22 AM

donquijote1954 wrote:
> On Feb 6, 6:09 pm, Bill Baka <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>>> I think having them ride a bike, the vehicle Jesus would have ridden,
>>> would be more fun than having them pollute the planet and support a
>>> war with their SUVs and then declare that the end is coming soon...
>> Once again, someone gets an "Amen".
>
> OK, then attend "Anonymous Cyclists." There's no salvation other than
> the Earth, and the only god is Mother Earth, who's been usurped by the
> Chauvinist God and his SUV crowds. Ride until you die.
>
> Amen for Mother Earth!
>
Shouldn't that be CAA for cycling addicts anonymous??
I use the bike for anything less than 5 miles, or big purchases, and of
course, business where it would look silly to ride up on a bicycle.
At least I drive a small car and have no use for an SUV. There are a lot
of 4 wheel drive cars that never even get near an off road experience.
Bill Baka