I wonder what's kept under wraps?

Page 4 of 5  


I have never fished salt water, but I'm sure my '6 and graphite ultralight wont get me much. Even my medium action 7' bass rod will probably be useless even with 20lb test. Naaaa.. just my ultra light and low-hanging fruit for now...:)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Salt water to me will always equal lead sinkers, about 8 hooks on the line (which looked a bit like wrapping twine), and just drop the sucker over the side of a the boat. Wait a bit. Haul it in. Anywhere from 1 to 5 flounders.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RE: Subject
Must be a slow day in the news room for this old wives tale to get any ink, virtual or otherwise.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

WHICH old wives' tale?
FoggyTown
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"FoggyTown" wrote:
WHICH old wives' tale?
How about the whole thread?
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Just Wondering wrote:

We can do that now, except it's less about tweaking and more about choices. We could have a more efficient large vehicle, it just wouldn't go stoplight to stoplight like a 60's muscle car. <G>
People buying cars want serious acceleration and hauling power, and lots of amenities and safety gear, regardless of need. Cars are stylish, and usually purchased on want over need.
Many Prius, smart car, Hemi Mega Cab Power Wagon, and H2 purchasers actually buy vehicles for similar reasons, they're making a personal statement. This is documented and studied by auto company marketing departments, with the advertising for a specific vehicle planned to match. A perfect example of this is the new crop of crossover SUV's, with SUV looks, over car or mini-van underpinnings.
My wife had a 1991 4 dr. Mazda Protege "econobox" that reliably got 40 MPG on highway trips with a 1.8L 16v engine. It had decent acceleration with a stick shift, one airbag, a basic interior with non-powered windows and locks, etc... Both of us felt relatively comfortable driving it.
The current car that occupies the same slot in the Mazda line-up weighs almost 800 pounds more, goes like stink (compared to my Protege), and includes power everything as standard equipment. In certain, but not all crashes, it's safer. Heavier cars usually fare better against other vehicles, properly designed lighter cars are often better in single car wrecks. Gas mileage is down in the high-20's.
All of this was really drilled into me when I became a pilot. Everything in physics is a trade-off. More performance = less range, replace the range, get less payload, replace the range and payload, use even more fuel, continue in loop... Cars are no different, it's just not as obvious. If there were some way to drastically increase piston engine efficiency, I think we'd see it in airplanes. A basic, 4 cylinder, 4 seat piston aircraft goes for ~ $300,000 new!
I'm not intending to judge others. My wife drives a 14 MPG 4.0L Jeep Wrangler with 32" tires, because she likes it. It rarely goes off road, never with her at the wheel. It handles like crap, with little accident avoidance capability. The only 4WD usage is in the snow, but as a teacher, she gets most snowy days off! I'm the only one who uses it with the top down, 3-4 days a year, as it messes up her hair. She loves her Jeep and the outdoorsy image that goes with it. <G>
My apologies for the looooooong post!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
[snipped insightful writing for the sake of brevity]

What a lot of people don't get, is that there are direct conversion formulae. 1 Gallon of fuel contains a finite amount of energy. Period. If that is used to move a Humvee from the stoplights to the next time the brakes are applied and overcoming rolling resistance, wind resistance and friction in the the time we get to the next stoplight...etc. If, for argument sake, it needs all the energy from a gallon of fuel to accomplish this task, a 80mpg carburator or a 1000mpg carburator aren't going to make one bit of difference.
It requires a certain amount of fuel to do a certain amount of work in a certain amount of time. And it does not make a difference if you squeeze the fuel through a generator and a set of batteries or create steam first. X amount of fuel = X amount of work. Now, there are stupid ways to DO the work, such as heating up all the air around you in the process of doing the work, or dragging a parachute behind your plane fro no reason...but you will NOT get more from your gallon than what ultimately is stored in that gallon.
I say, hook everything up to a perpetual motion machine.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

While all of this is true, it's ignoring efficiency. If that Humvee with an internal combustion engine gets 10 mpg, if it could be fitted with a 100% efficient engine it might get 30 or more mpg with no change in performance. Trouble is we don't know how to make a 100% efficient engine or anything coming even close. Still any increase in efficiency will reduce fuel consumption.
The CAFE law was changed recently to require CAFE of 35 mpg by 2020. That means that the auto manufacturers are going to be making more small cars and looking for ways to make large ones more efficient.

--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It is only when you introduce another variable, like a more efficient Hummer, that ignoring efficiency becomes a factor. My Hummer was a constant. When I stated: " Now, there are stupid ways to DO the work, such as heating up all the air around you in the process of doing the work, or dragging a parachute behind your plane for no reason...but you will NOT get more from your gallon than what ultimately is stored in that gallon." --- I think that dealt with the issue of efficiency.
r
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

I think the confusion sets in when you state:
"X amount of fuel = X amount of work" as if it were a constant. It is not.
X amount of fuel = X amount of energy would be accurate, but the amount of *work* is going to be determined by efficiency.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

As you looked at it in that light, you are correct. Stated as an absolute that 'formula' would be incomplete, to say the least. Even with the Hummer as a constant. I'll be more careful next time. *G*
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

Just nitpickin'
:-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

Not if you had two different kinds of carburetor on it it wasn't.

All internal combustion engines "heat up the air around you to do the work" so I guess that they're all "stupid ways to DO the work". But this doesn't alter the fact that if they can be made to get more work out of a given quantity of heat then they become more efficient. That is what one presumes that the magic carburetor is supposed to do.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

...
One wonders how, precisely, on its own, it does so with so much flair, however... :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

Particularly since fully-injected, metered per cylinder systems don't come close...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

Why, it precatalyzes the fuel so that it undergoes cold fusion in the cylinder of course.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But it's usually warm in cylinders, no?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

Never let facts ruin a good story:)
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

...
:) I guess I missed that part in the owner's manual theory section...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

Your premise is quite correct, but I'm not so sure about your conclusion.
Yes, a gallon of fuel contains a fixed amount of energy, but an internal combustion engine can't get 100% of that energy to the wheels. So what all the pipe dreams are about is trying to squeeze as much of that available energy from that gallon of gas as possible.
While preposterous ideas and claims abound, it would be wrong to imply that there is no possibility of mechanical improvements that would increase efficiency.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.