No ferther need for ppm
Moderator: scott
No ferther need for ppm
OPEC promises to reduce the price it charges per barrel of oil and to produce more barrels per day.......as soon as it can find smaller barrels...
the uneducated
if your gona be dumb you gota be tough
Who need drugs when you can have fatigue toxins and caffeine
if your gona be dumb you gota be tough
Who need drugs when you can have fatigue toxins and caffeine
re: No ferther need for ppm
ROTFLOL
re: No ferther need for ppm
Reducing the "Serving Size" should help... ...
:)
... not.
If only we could add some miracle "aspertame-like" substitiute...
We could look forward to "Petrol-Zero"
:)
... not.
If only we could add some miracle "aspertame-like" substitiute...
We could look forward to "Petrol-Zero"
"A man with a new idea is a crank until he succeeds."~ M. Twain.
-
ken_behrendt
- Addict
- Posts: 3487
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:45 am
- Location: new jersey, usa
- Contact:
re: No ferther need for ppm
For the time being, the best we seem able to do is to try to improve the efficiency of the processes that consume fossil fuels.
I think Congress just passed our President's Energy Bill which starts to put limits on things such as how cold our freezers will get and how hot toasters will get. They also want to extend Daylight Saving Time by starting it two weeks earlier and ending it two weeks later.
These are probably steps in the right direction, since the USA currently has about 6% of the world's population, but is burning off about 25% of the world's available energy supplies!
Since the biggest way we use fossil fuel is with our infernal combustion engines, this should, in my opinion, be the major focus of research into improved engine efficiency and the use of alternative renewable energy sources to power our vehicles.
I've been a reader of popular science and technology magazines since I was a kid. Most of them made sci-fi type predictions about cars and space travel that never occurred back in the latter half of the 20th century as was predicted.
Now, however, the situation is starting to get "serious". I hope the world can finally get its energy act together before things really get desperate...
ken
I think Congress just passed our President's Energy Bill which starts to put limits on things such as how cold our freezers will get and how hot toasters will get. They also want to extend Daylight Saving Time by starting it two weeks earlier and ending it two weeks later.
These are probably steps in the right direction, since the USA currently has about 6% of the world's population, but is burning off about 25% of the world's available energy supplies!
Since the biggest way we use fossil fuel is with our infernal combustion engines, this should, in my opinion, be the major focus of research into improved engine efficiency and the use of alternative renewable energy sources to power our vehicles.
I've been a reader of popular science and technology magazines since I was a kid. Most of them made sci-fi type predictions about cars and space travel that never occurred back in the latter half of the 20th century as was predicted.
Now, however, the situation is starting to get "serious". I hope the world can finally get its energy act together before things really get desperate...
ken
On 7/6/06, I found, in any overbalanced gravity wheel with rotation rate, ω, axle to CG distance d, and CG dip angle φ, the average vertical velocity of its drive weights is downward and given by:
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
re: No ferther need for ppm
>Since the biggest way we use fossil fuel is with our infernal combustion engines<
I've wondered about stats like this but have never gotten around to checking them out, might you have a source for this? I have my doubts that engines use most of the oil, because plastics are made with oil too.
I've wondered about stats like this but have never gotten around to checking them out, might you have a source for this? I have my doubts that engines use most of the oil, because plastics are made with oil too.
Disclaimer: I reserve the right not to know what I'm talking about and not to mention this possibility in my posts. This disclaimer also applies to sentences I claim are quotes from anybody, including me.
re: No ferther need for ppm
billionaires are made with oil too
the uneducated
if your gona be dumb you gota be tough
Who need drugs when you can have fatigue toxins and caffeine
if your gona be dumb you gota be tough
Who need drugs when you can have fatigue toxins and caffeine
re: No ferther need for ppm
Yea right, like plastics is going to be the largest use of the oil resources. Most plastics can be recycled nowadays, Petrol cannot. I would stamp out fuel guzzlers like 4x4's and anything over 2 litre and only sale manufactured cars between 1 and 2 litre engines for motor vehicles. I can't see the point driving on a flat surface on the road in a 4x4. It doesn't add up. Keep 4x4's for off use road only. Next everyone will be driving around in tractors on the road. If everyone stuck to the same type of car, then everyone will be saving fuel resources and keeping the environment clean. I believe this is a better way of keeping our children safe for the future, at least they will have a planet left after we have gone.
re: No ferther need for ppm
trevie,
I must disagree with you about 4x4's. I see your location is "United Kingdom". I must ask how much snow and ice do you get each winter? I have a Nissan 2.4 liter 4x4 pickup and I'll never again be without it, unless I move south. We get our first snowfall about the end of November. Usually our rural gravel road becomes snow packed about mid January and does not melt until mid March. Our last frost is mid May. Every winter we get a number of ice storms. Before I had four wheel drive winter driving was very tough. I live in a rural area. A vehicle is a necessity, unless one wants to walk 10 miles round trip to get food or up to 70 miles round trip to and from work. I get about 26 MPG with my 4x4, which is about the same as my wife's two wheel drive Chevy Lumina. Before the kids left home we had a 4x4 Nissan Pathfinder. Four-wheel drive is almost a necessity, not a luxury!
Many people from other countries don't understand how BIG the United States is. A trip for my wife to visit her mother is 820 miles one way. A trip from Michigan to North Carolina which we make a few times a year is over 1500 miles round trip. You don't want to make that length of trip in a puny cramped under powered car. I know, I've had small under powered cars before! They are a danger to everyone. They can't accelearate to get onto expressways. They don't have enough power to pass slow moving vehicles. You meet a large truck and about get blown off the road. In winter they get stuck in the first snow drift they find. A sudden wind gust even blew a small Yugo off the Mackinac bridge.
Small cars are great for in city driving. But for rural or cross country driving give me a BIG car. After the US car companies downsized all the passenger cars the only vehicles large enough for a family with four kids to make a cross country trip is a van or an SUV.
I must disagree with you about 4x4's. I see your location is "United Kingdom". I must ask how much snow and ice do you get each winter? I have a Nissan 2.4 liter 4x4 pickup and I'll never again be without it, unless I move south. We get our first snowfall about the end of November. Usually our rural gravel road becomes snow packed about mid January and does not melt until mid March. Our last frost is mid May. Every winter we get a number of ice storms. Before I had four wheel drive winter driving was very tough. I live in a rural area. A vehicle is a necessity, unless one wants to walk 10 miles round trip to get food or up to 70 miles round trip to and from work. I get about 26 MPG with my 4x4, which is about the same as my wife's two wheel drive Chevy Lumina. Before the kids left home we had a 4x4 Nissan Pathfinder. Four-wheel drive is almost a necessity, not a luxury!
Many people from other countries don't understand how BIG the United States is. A trip for my wife to visit her mother is 820 miles one way. A trip from Michigan to North Carolina which we make a few times a year is over 1500 miles round trip. You don't want to make that length of trip in a puny cramped under powered car. I know, I've had small under powered cars before! They are a danger to everyone. They can't accelearate to get onto expressways. They don't have enough power to pass slow moving vehicles. You meet a large truck and about get blown off the road. In winter they get stuck in the first snow drift they find. A sudden wind gust even blew a small Yugo off the Mackinac bridge.
Small cars are great for in city driving. But for rural or cross country driving give me a BIG car. After the US car companies downsized all the passenger cars the only vehicles large enough for a family with four kids to make a cross country trip is a van or an SUV.
re: No ferther need for ppm
well we could save enegry by gardening while shaving $75.00 a year off our grocery bill.....only takes a few hundred hour's of hard work
the uneducated
if your gona be dumb you gota be tough
Who need drugs when you can have fatigue toxins and caffeine
if your gona be dumb you gota be tough
Who need drugs when you can have fatigue toxins and caffeine
re: No ferther need for ppm
Well Jim I can see you may require a 4x4 and I agree on some of what you are saying, if you live out in the sticks and then its put to good use. But over here in rural England, where snow is very limited down south and gritters are the norm. I can't see why people drive around on a summers day on a normal dry road in a 4x4 that's never seen anything softer than hard tarmac. People over here seem to use them as a statement accessory and nothing else, but also to drive our resources to diminished quantities. The last time I saw a foot of snow here in the chilterns was back in 1977. You may feel safe when you can overtake a slow moving vehicle because you have the power, but having a puny under powered car can also be driven safely too. Its all about judgement of when to overtake and not to pull out cause I have the power. I drive around in a small car and can overtake safely everytime. if in doubt, I don't overtake until I can. It may delay you getting to your destination by a few seconds but I get there eventually. The other thing, vehicles that are designed for power and speed, Drive them very fast and you can only get 3 MPG, Why? If you want something with power, you think it would be sensible to design with economy in mind but also getting the power. To put this in to another context. When designing laptops computer processors, You want plenty of speed when running power thirsty programs but you also want to run from the battery for 5 hours. Its always best to design for power and efficiency not just one or the other. I can understand there has to be a little give in 4x4 but just to drive down to the local shops in a 4x4 and back, is inefficient and probably used up 5 gallons in the process, which I could of travelled 180 miles in my own car in.
-
John Collins
- Addict
- Posts: 3300
- Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 6:33 am
- Location: Warwickshire. England
- Contact:
re: No ferther need for ppm
Why do people say all 4x4 's are gas guzzlers without any discrimination? I've got a 4x4 Landrover Freelander turbo diesel and it does 40 mpg - hardly a gas guzzler!
John Collins
John Collins
-
ken_behrendt
- Addict
- Posts: 3487
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:45 am
- Location: new jersey, usa
- Contact:
re: No ferther need for ppm
Jim...
If you are getting 26 mpg in your 4x4, then that is very good.
John...
If you are getting 40 mpg in your 4x4, then that is fantastic!
I thought I read somewhere that the "average" American driver of an SUV is only getting about 12 to 14 mpg in terms of real world gas mileage.
Most of the people I have talked to who just purchased a new vehicle are telling me that the advertised gas mileage ratings for those vehicles were somewhat inflated. Apparently, when they come up with those gas mileage figures, the vehicle is tested on a platform which only allows the driving wheels to turn. There is, therefore, no rolling tire friction from the undriven wheels and no air resistance. The gas mileage ratings derived from these tests are only meant for comparing two vehicles...not for determining their actual gas mileage on the road.
I live in a suburban area, not a rural one. However, I would estimate that fully half of the vehicles I now see on the road are SUV's and about 90% of the time they are only carrying a single passenger. Yes, they can offer better driving in bad weather, however, it has come to light that if they have a blowout, then they are much more prone to a rollover than a regular automobile with a lower center of gravity. And then there's the problem of insurance. SUV's can do a LOT more damage to another driver and his vehicle in an accident and, consequently, they tend to have higher insurance costs associated with them.
I had a friend who purchased a used SUV. Everything went well for about his first four months of driving. Then the vehicle developed a "drive train" problem. Something went wrong with the transmission that prevented the four wheel drive from being used. He had it fixed and the repair bill came out to almost $1000.
Anyway, I'm content with mid-sized automobiles which I have found more practical for the limited suburban / city driving I do.
ken
If you are getting 26 mpg in your 4x4, then that is very good.
John...
If you are getting 40 mpg in your 4x4, then that is fantastic!
I thought I read somewhere that the "average" American driver of an SUV is only getting about 12 to 14 mpg in terms of real world gas mileage.
Most of the people I have talked to who just purchased a new vehicle are telling me that the advertised gas mileage ratings for those vehicles were somewhat inflated. Apparently, when they come up with those gas mileage figures, the vehicle is tested on a platform which only allows the driving wheels to turn. There is, therefore, no rolling tire friction from the undriven wheels and no air resistance. The gas mileage ratings derived from these tests are only meant for comparing two vehicles...not for determining their actual gas mileage on the road.
I live in a suburban area, not a rural one. However, I would estimate that fully half of the vehicles I now see on the road are SUV's and about 90% of the time they are only carrying a single passenger. Yes, they can offer better driving in bad weather, however, it has come to light that if they have a blowout, then they are much more prone to a rollover than a regular automobile with a lower center of gravity. And then there's the problem of insurance. SUV's can do a LOT more damage to another driver and his vehicle in an accident and, consequently, they tend to have higher insurance costs associated with them.
I had a friend who purchased a used SUV. Everything went well for about his first four months of driving. Then the vehicle developed a "drive train" problem. Something went wrong with the transmission that prevented the four wheel drive from being used. He had it fixed and the repair bill came out to almost $1000.
Anyway, I'm content with mid-sized automobiles which I have found more practical for the limited suburban / city driving I do.
ken
On 7/6/06, I found, in any overbalanced gravity wheel with rotation rate, ω, axle to CG distance d, and CG dip angle φ, the average vertical velocity of its drive weights is downward and given by:
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
re: No ferther need for ppm
40 MPG (UK Gallons) = 33.3 MPG (US Gallons) and diesels usually get about 20 to 30 percent better milage due to the higher compression ratio. This puts John's LandRover at about comparable to a gasoline vehicle getting 26 to 28 US MPG.
re: No ferther need for ppm
My turbo deisel Pathfinder is doing 10 km to the litre. That's pretty comparable. My wifes Humvee on the other hand :-S (just kidding).
I wouldn't be without my 4x4 by choice.
I wouldn't be without my 4x4 by choice.