Ah righto, next time I want to go to the Supermarket I'll walk. It's only 6 miles after all.
One time when flying SF to London, the captain came on and told us how much fuel we'd used on the trip. A bit of mental arithmetic showed that to be about 40mpg per passenger.
Yes - long distance in a large aircraft carrying a full load is quite comparable to a car with only the driver. A ship would be much better, though, just in terms of MPG per passenger mile. As is a train.
OK So how does that explain then that when accelerating in a fixed gear (manual gearbox) in a car whose peak torque was around 4,000 rpm and peak power was 6,200 rpm, the reading from my G-meter showed the highest Gs between the peaks at around 5,500 rpm ?
David
Why not cycle, and if you can't cycle there is the option of living closer, or using a corner shop?
I once had an argument with a "green". He believed using a train was always environmentally friendly. When I pointed out that my journey of
4 miles in a car used less fuel and produced less CO2 than his much longer train journey, thankfully he was silenced.
Better? The Russian rockets could have heavier payloads - yes.
But that was down to their nuclear warheads being heavier.
I get the impression many have never seen torque and BHP curves for an engine. Let alone understand why a gearbox is needed and what it does.
Try carrying a week's worth of food for a family on a pushbike. Anyone who lives six miles from a supermarket is also unlikely to have access to a corner shop. Where I used to live in Wales, the second nearest shop was the supermarket five miles away. The nearest was the corner shop 200 yards away from the supermarket. The online shops don't cover that area, either.
It's somewhat true in France, where most trains are powered by electricity generated in nuclear power stations. Assuming there's a train that goes your way, of course.
I said engines. They were more power for the same weight and more reliable.
IIRC they just had more warheads and they needed a bigger range to get to all of America. The USA goes down into the tropics, Russia doesn't so the yanks didn't need as much range.
Of course with subs the situation changed.
I think you should look up the figures for that.. I think planes use far less fuel per passenger mile than ships. We don't cram people in on ships these days.
Its physics.. energy is mv2. to increase the speed you have to input energy. if the engine is inputting more energy you will accelerate faster.
F=3Dma, so acceelration is proportional to force, which is engine torque times the gear ratio. So while you stay in a given gear, max acceleration occurs at the same time as max engine torque. So presumably something is wrong in your readings of engine torque.
NT
Your engine isn't to spec?
Wing in ground effect vehicles could be a reasonable compromise. Some of the speed of flying, with some of the economy of ships.
Airships mate, that's the answer.
Probably the lowest energy per tonne mile of anything.
The failed because of the lack of power to weight and the fragility and flammability of the actual structures and gas they used. Carbon fibre an helium could make a lot of difference.
Thinking back to them most of the losses were to fire (Hindenburg)
What, with six large bags of groceries? You can't be serious. And why would I want to live closer. We chose where we are *precisely* to have next to no traffic noise or close neighbours.
Nearest shop of any sort is 2.5 miles away, with a drop of 200ft and climb of 200ft on the way. The climb part is on a steep rutted road so bad I can barely do it in a car, much less on a bike. That *is* the corner shop.
Supermarket is down 240ft, then up 150ft, then down 200ft. No thanks. And in Jan we did 530 miles total by car, so I'm not bothered.
And we just has a woodburner put in. The other side of the field behind us is a bloke whose living is supplying logs. So only 0.5 log-miles for our fuel, too.
about 5 years ago there was a website advertising one. It started just west of Cardiff.
OK - when they get that tunnel under the Bering Strait, I'll move back there and train from St Panc via Brussels, Berlin, Moscow, Vladivostok, Some dump in Alaska, Vancouver, San Fran. Two weeks should be plenty for that.
Or the Northwest passage when there's no longer any ice that way. Need to crank up the CO2 for that to work.
Of course the real answer is not to have moved there in the first place.
There's been a bridge over the Atlantic for years:-
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)" writes
It was a fantastic plane. Flew in it from Nice to Heathrow - about 3 weeks before the crash. Same crew
HomeOwnersHub website 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.