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...:)
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.
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
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!
[snipped insightful writing for the sake of brevity]
What a lot of people don't get, is that there are direct conversion
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
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
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.
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.
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
--- I think that dealt with the issue of efficiency.
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.
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.
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
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.