Climatte Change For Idiots!
| Climatte Change For Idiots!11-01-2018 08:56 | |
| Cleantech_Guide☆☆☆☆☆ (2) |
Howdy good people! Climate change is here and it's happening and we have to act now. To start off i would like to do my part my spreading awareness to the entire world as i feel awareness is what the world is lacking in this segment right now. With my effort to reach out all walks of life i have come up with something called as Climate Change for Idiots! CC4I consists of questions with easy to understand answers that are fundamental to understanding climate change.Thus making it a handy tool for the ordinary Joe. Here is one for you. Are climate change and global warming one and the same? If Yes why are we experiencing colder winters this year. Do Check my blog and help me make it better.http://www.cleantech.guide/p/cc4i/1887/ Edited on 11-01-2018 09:12 |
| 11-01-2018 10:07 | |
Into the Night ★★★★★(21582) |
Cleantech_Guide wrote: Define 'climate change' or 'global warming' without using circular definitions. It is not necessary to act on meaningless buzz phrases. Cleantech_Guide wrote: The Church of Global Warming is worldwide. Everyone is aware of your buzz phrases. Cleantech_Guide wrote: Writing a blog for yourself? Cleantech_Guide wrote: Same old 'answers' to the same old non-problem. You are just preaching the same old religion that your fellow believers in the Church of Global Warming preach. Cleantech_Guide wrote: Yes. They are both meaningless buzz phrases. Cleantech_Guide wrote: It's called winter (singular). There is only one winter per year. It's not a particularly cold one either. Just happens to be cold on the east coast at the moment. Even Florida got some snow. Just a couple of weeks ago I was amazed at how warm Las Vegas was this winter. Weather is not climate. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 11-01-2018 11:47 | |
| Tim the plumber★★★★☆ (1356) |
Cleantech_Guide wrote: What do you consider to be the single most scary effect of a slightly warmer world? I need a single thing. Then we can look at it in detail. |
| 11-01-2018 17:58 | |
| litesong★★★★★ (2297) |
Cleantech_Guide wrote: http://www.cleantech.guide/p/cc4i/1887/From your given website: When we talk of global warming, we are thus referring only to the increasing atmospheric temperature. /////// When talking about present Earth man-made global warming, it is about lower atmospheric average temperature increasing AND high atmosphere average temperature cooling AND ocean average temperature increases AND land average temperature increases. /////// Also, you have ran into a website heavily populated with old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiners & some many time(plus 1) threateners. Tread here if you don't mind verbal combat..... & some threats..... hopefully NOT more dastardly immoral actions. Edited on 11-01-2018 18:06 |
| 11-01-2018 18:36 | |
| James_★★★★★ (2211) |
Tim the plumber wrote:Cleantech_Guide wrote: With me, I'd say we start heading towards an unavoidable ice age. Scientists know they happen at 100,000 year intervals (approx.) but not why. |
| 11-01-2018 19:07 | |
| Wake★★★★★ (4034) |
Cleantech_Guide wrote: You define climate as: " temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and wind. " Are you suggesting that air pressure will change? And if so how? Is it your opinion that the atmosphere is getting thicker? Likewise humidity - where is a long term record of humidity across the globe? And why would humidity be effected by anything more than temperature since that controls the amount of moisture the atmosphere can hold? You have the same problem with the other factors you describe. Actually "climate change" is used to describe global warming because most people can see that it is cold and think that they could use a little warming. The Earth's surface temperature hasn't been rising for the last 39 years - since the environmentalists took over NASA and decided that if they lie enough they could make everyone listen to them. We especially like the 97% of all scientists believe in it part. That number started at a meeting of 4,000 scientists who met at the first IPCC meeting. Upon exit they polled all of them and only 39 had a positive or negative answer. The rest all stated no opinion because there was insufficient data. The source of that number changed several time ending up and as being the number of research papers published. The really great thing about that was that no one could get a research grant unless they made it clear that they believe there was AGW. Also NASA purposely misrepresented the majority of papers as "for" when the authors usually came up with "no results" or "no AGW". Scientists had to SUE NASA to get them to remove their names from the "for" column. Now that Trump is in research grants are actually being handed out to real research and not back patters. http://notrickszone.com/2018/01/01/150-non-global-warming-graphs-from-2017-pummel-claims-of-unusual-modern-warmth/#sthash.xOMSjuoT.XzS7Gm4L.dpbs The Oregon Petition has more than 30,000 signatures ALL from degreed scientists including more than 9,000 PhD's including 3 Nobel Prize winners. This petition that among other things says, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." How many IPCC scientists are saying climate change is real? 2,500 and most of them are not scientists at all but rather politicians who can gain very real power with scare tactics. Here is a question for you - why would you start a blog when you so clearly do not understand what you are speaking of? |
| 11-01-2018 19:26 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21582) |
Tim the plumber wrote:Cleantech_Guide wrote: Because the real goal of the Church of Global Warming isn't to prevent it. You and I know that warmer times tend to produce better crop yields, better economies, etc. The real goal of the Church of Global Warming is tied to it's parent church, the Church of Karl Marx. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 11-01-2018 19:27 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21582) |
James_ wrote:Tim the plumber wrote:Cleantech_Guide wrote: Guess we don't need to worry. The last ice age ended a mere 12,000 years ago. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 11-01-2018 19:40 | |
| James_★★★★★ (2211) |
James_ wrote: Into the Night wrote: "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" wiffed: |
| 12-01-2018 03:53 | |
| litesong★★★★★ (2297) |
James_ wrote: "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" wiffed:Glad to commend your devotion to.... accuracy. |
| 31-01-2018 10:02 | |
| Cleantech_Guide☆☆☆☆☆ (2) |
Into the Night wrote:Cleantech_Guide wrote: |
| 31-01-2018 17:53 | |
| Wake★★★★★ (4034) |
Cleantech_Guide wrote:Into the Night wrote:Cleantech_Guide wrote: I'm sorry. I went out to your website and you really don't have much of a handle on anything. Let's take for instance your ideas of rising sea levels. We started measuring sea levels directly after the civil war. That's 1865 for people that don't understand years. The Maunder Minimum or Little Ice Age officially ended in 1860. The glaciers on Iceland and Greenland and the lower altitude glaciers in the mid-latitudes all began to recover. As these glaciers have been melting away with loud cries of fright from unnamed morons beneath them is previously farmed land. The sea level rise was measured at 1 mm per year. That means that the sea level between 1865 and now would have risen six inches. Suddenly during the Obama requirement to obtain proof positive of AGW to hand to the IPCC as part of the drive for a one world government they claimed that the sea levels had lately begun rising 2 mm per year. Why was that? Because the claim is that the core of the Earth is shrinking 1 mm per year as it cools. So since we can only measure 1 mm of rise the oceans have to be rising at 2 mm to compensate for a shrinkage that is entirely theoretical and has no more science behind it than AGW. And then we run across another problem - high latitude glaciers are growing. And the Greenland glaciers have receded to the point at which they are almost entirely consumed to the level, at which they were, previous to the Maunder Minimum. And the higher altitude glaciers on Greenland and Iceland are not shrinking. Even the glacier in Alaska that ass Obama stood in front of to make his point of man-made global warming has not changed position more than a mile and a quarter in 150 years - advancing and then retreating. Since Obama it has been advancing. The islands have been accumulating land area much faster than the small change in sea levels. The Marshal Islands which is the lowest of the Pacific island chains have not been disappearing but growing. Who would have thought that the wave actions that cause erosion in some coastal areas cause land building in other areas? Only someone that has studied the subject. With the last of the low altitude and middle latitude glaciers returned to the state they were before the Maunder Minimum it is more than likely that the rise in sea levels will cease. And since all climate is cyclic, there is a likelihood that it will reverse in the coming years as another cold period follows this warm period. You can continue to misinform people in a rather informative manner but the fact is that there hasn't really been any warming for the last 38 years. Now it is possible that we will again go into another warming period but warm periods really pretty much run their course after 125 years and times up. Except for NASA's manufactured temperature data (https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf) there is nothing in the climate record that shows the slighted irregularity presently. So NASA's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg is nothing more than fake news and they well know it since their satellite data shows http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2017_v6.jpg Of course you can be part of the problem instead of part of the solution by continuing to spread false information or you can actually go out and study the subject. |
| 31-01-2018 23:35 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21582) |
Wake wrote:Cleantech_Guide wrote:Into the Night wrote:Cleantech_Guide wrote: It is not possible to measure sea level. You have no reference point. There is literally no way to determine sea level to within 1 or 2mm. Tidal stations along the southern coast of the United States have been showing a 'rise' in sea level, while tidal stations along the northern coast of North America have been showing a 'fall' in sea level. Satellite systems also reference back to a land based beacon. Land moves. Wake wrote: Sort of. The phrase 'little ice age' was not really used before 1939. The Maunder Minimum ended around 1715. The cool period (which came from various minimums of solar activity) DID effectively end in 1860. Wake wrote: Rather impossible to tell WHAT was beneath a glacier. Glaciers rather scour the land clean, you see. Wake wrote: It is not possible to measure sea level. You have no reference point. Tidal station data isn't anywhere accurate enough, and neither is any satellite system. Wake wrote: It is not possible to measure sea level to this level of accuracy at all. Wake wrote: Simple. The Church of Global Warming likes to make arguments from randU. They like to manufacture data and numbers. Wake wrote: It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth's core. We don't even know if it's cooling, warming, or just staying the same. Since much of the high temperatures at the core are the result of nuclear fission, there is no reason to suspect that it's cooling at all. Wake wrote: Your entire argument is one of randU. You are just making up numbers, like everyone else in the Church of Global Warming. We cannot measure sea level anywhere near that accurately, and we cannot measure the temperature of the Earth's core. We cannot even measure accurately the diameter of the Earth (it's different depending on what direction you 'measure' it in). Wake wrote: Some are, some aren't. No one is monitoring all of the Earth's glaciers. Wake wrote: Greenland (why do people pick on Greenland?) is built like a giant bowl. The snow fields are essentially trapped in this bowl. The depth of that snowfield varies with the seasons and the usual kind of variance of any weather. The glaciers this field feeds vary according to seasonal and normal weather variations, and the heat coming from the Earth below (which also varies). Wake wrote: Some are, some aren't. It depends on the glacier. Greenland has a lot of glaciers. No one is monitoring all of them. Wake wrote:This is true for this particular glacier. Wake wrote: Also true. Wake wrote: It is not possible to measure sea level. Some islands have accumulated land, some have lost it. Wake wrote: There is no indication that they are growing. Wake wrote: That does not cause new land. It just moves it around. Some of it just washes away into the sea. Corals can cause new sand, through the action of fish feeding on it (typically the parrot fish). Wake wrote: Doesn't look like you understand how erosion affects an island. Wake wrote: It is not possible to measure sea level. Wake wrote:Define 'climate change' without using circular definitions. Define 'cyclic' in this context. Wake wrote: A reversed cycle is just a cycle. Wake wrote:It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Wake wrote: You don't know how long any warm or cool period will last or when they will occur. Wake wrote: There is no climate record. There is no such thing as a global climate. There is no such thing as a global weather. Wake wrote: It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Satellites are unable to measure temperature. They measure light. You don't know Earth's emissivity. Wake wrote: Like you are doing? You are making the same mistakes as everyone else in the Church of Global Warming. Wake wrote: You obviously haven't. There is so much made up stuff here, it shows just exactly what you know. You are just another believer in the Church of Global Warming. A different sect, it is true, but a believer all the same. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 18-02-2018 20:38 | |
| Wake★★★★★ (4034) |
Cleantech_Guide wrote: Tell all of us curious people - how would WE do anything even if we believed that global warming was occurring? You're suggesting that I should do something when you or people like you are flying aircraft all over the world and making some 40% of the CO2 generated by transportation? I should turn off another light when all of the bridges around San Francisco are lit up with thousands and thousands of lights and the entire downtown section has every single light turned on? That I should stop using my $40 of water each month while the government is watering national parks? You really aren't playing with a full deck are you? |
| 20-02-2018 19:41 | |
| litesong★★★★★ (2297) |
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rootin'(& rottin') racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiners & many time(plus 1) threatener wake-me-up" wiffed: Tell all of us curious people - how would WE do anything....On a careful drive with stoplights, stop signs & elevation gains, I got an indicated 53MPG.... no diesel, no hybrid, no electric, no turbo-charger. Matter of fact, my car was one that lead footers complained about for poor MPG. Of course, "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rootin'(& rottin') racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiners & many time(plus 1) threatener wake-me-up" remains an old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rootin'(& rottin') racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiners & many time(plus 1) threatener. |
| 20-02-2018 22:39 | |
| Wake★★★★★ (4034) |
litesong wrote:"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rootin'(& rottin') racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiners & many time(plus 1) threatener wake-me-up" wiffed: Tell all of us curious people - how would WE do anything....On a careful drive with stoplights, stop signs & elevation gains, I got an indicated 53MPG.... no diesel, no hybrid, no electric, no turbo-charger. Matter of fact, my car was one that lead footers complained about for poor MPG. Those old cars "that lead footers complained about for poor MPG" usually weighed about a ton and some were more. Let's make the following assumptions - the car weighs a metric ton which is 1,000 kg or slightly under an American "short" ton. To drive it at 62.5 or so mph would be 100 kph. Force = Mass x Acceleration To accelerate 1,000 kg at 5 m/s to achieve 30 kph in two seconds would require 12,500 Newtons per second or 17 hp/sec. Since no one knows proper driving procedures and least of all litebrain this must be repeated for every stop. Normal thermal efficiency of a gasoline motor is 20% meaning that five times 17 = 85 hp. Parasitic loses in a good car are 6% Drivetrain loses are another 5% at a minimum Wheel loses some 20% This means that you have to increase the HP number to 111 hp JUST for the accelerating from stop sign to stop sign. It turns out that the average care requires at least a 140 hp engine for normal in-city driving. Wind resistance and rolling resistance at constant speed are about 11 or so HP. In the end it takes about 4.5 gallons to go 62.5 miles in mixed city and highway driving or 14 mpg. So PLEASE by all means tell us all about how you can change the laws of physics and get 54 mpg in a 2,000 lb car. The most fuel efficient gas engine on the market in a compact car can't make 30 mpg in city conditions. |
| 21-02-2018 06:03 | |
| litesong★★★★★ (2297) |
Wake wrote:Ist gut das der brainchen ist disKonek-dead from thot pattrns of twuth. Ma car ist 2016, almost 1400 kilos, 146 HP engine, und don' got die beste LP100KM. Jawohl...."many time(plus 1) threatener wake-me-up" ist schlafen as das autos pass by.litesong wrote:Those old cars "that lead footers complained about for poor MPG" usually weighed about a ton and some were more."old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rootin'(& rottin') racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiners & many time(plus 1) threatener wake-me-up" wiffed: Tell all of us curious people - how would WE do anything....On a careful drive with stoplights, stop signs & elevation gains, I got an indicated 53MPG.... no diesel, no hybrid, no electric, no turbo-charger. Matter of fact, my car was one that lead footers complained about for poor MPG. |
| 21-02-2018 17:02 | |
| Wake★★★★★ (4034) |
litesong wrote:Wake wrote:Ist gut das der brainchen ist disKonek-dead from thot pattrns of twuth. Ma car ist 2016, almost 1400 kilos, 146 HP engine, und don' got die beste LP100KM. Jawohl...."many time(plus 1) threatener wake-me-up" ist schlafen as das autos pass by.litesong wrote:Those old cars "that lead footers complained about for poor MPG" usually weighed about a ton and some were more."old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rootin'(& rottin') racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiners & many time(plus 1) threatener wake-me-up" wiffed: Tell all of us curious people - how would WE do anything....On a careful drive with stoplights, stop signs & elevation gains, I got an indicated 53MPG.... no diesel, no hybrid, no electric, no turbo-charger. Matter of fact, my car was one that lead footers complained about for poor MPG. So if I understand you correctly you're saying "WAHHHHHHHHHH CAUGHT IN ANOTHER LIE". |
| 22-02-2018 08:10 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21582) |
Wake wrote:litesong wrote:"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rootin'(& rottin') racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiners & many time(plus 1) threatener wake-me-up" wiffed: Tell all of us curious people - how would WE do anything....On a careful drive with stoplights, stop signs & elevation gains, I got an indicated 53MPG.... no diesel, no hybrid, no electric, no turbo-charger. Matter of fact, my car was one that lead footers complained about for poor MPG. Bad math, dude. Also bad references, and poor unit conversions. A typical car weighs about 1800kg (or about 4000 lbs, or TWO tons). This is the typical curb weight of a car with no usable fuel, no cargo, and no passengers or driver. It does include the weight of the oil in the engine and transmission (for all the diff its going to make for this purpose). As you said, F=mA. What you failed to use are the correct units of the equation. F is Newtons, just Newtons, not Newtons per second. m is mass in kg. A is meters per second per second For now we will assume your light weight car of 1000kg (or only 2200 lbs). Maybe you drive a Chevy Spark or something. We can also ignore the weight of the gas (about 60 lbs for a 10 gallon tank), and the weight of the driver for this purpose. I will again assume you are accelerating this thing at 5m/s/s until you reach 30kph (about 18mph). This means it will take 1.8 seconds (5 * 3600 seconds gives us 18kph or about 11mph in the first second). Since we know the acceleration and the mass, all we need now is the force. We do not need algebra to reorder the equation. For each second of acceleration, Force is going to be the same. That will be 5m/s/s * 1000kg which is 5000 Newtons (not Newtons per second). In that time the car will have moved 5 meters. Since a joule is the number of Newtons per meter, we can then calculate 5000 Newtons / 5 meters or 1000 joules. We are using that 1000 joules for one second, so this also means the total power to move this distance is 1000W. Watts is directly convertible to horsepower, so this means the engine will have to produce 1.34 hp to accelerate the car over this distance in one second. This is the required hp rating of the engine, ignoring for the moment drag from tires and internal mechanics (air drag is small enough to ignore at this speed). Driveline loss is typically in the range of 16%. This includes tire drag for a typical set of street tires. Thus, we must ADD 16% of 1.34 hp to the 1.34 hp to get 1.55 hp total. This is the total horsepower required to accelerate the car at the given rate when equipped with street tires for the first second. The 2nd second is pretty similar to the first one, since at this speed drag is so low (you need more horsepower the faster you go for the given weight on the tires, the road surfae, and aerodynamics of the car). Automotive engines can have a thermal efficiency rating of about 20% as you said. Some are reaching 37% now. Where you made the error here is in dividing the horsepower by this much. You don't have to. Horsepower doesn't concern the thermal efficiency of the engine. The thermal efficiency of the engine has to deal with temperature drop from the hot part of the engine to the cold part of the engine, and how much of that power results in turning the shaft. A gallon of gasoline has available about 120 million joules. It is THIS number that must be MULTIPLIED (not divided) by the efficiency of the engine. In other words, of that 120 million joules in that gallon of gasoline, only 24 million joules are producing shaft power for a 20% efficient engine. This will be true whether the shaft is actually turning the wheels or not. If you are sitting idle at the stop light, you are STILL seeing this use of gasoline. In actuality, engines running at high load or no load conditions are not very efficient at all. Unburned fuel makes it through. Note the force required to accelerate the car is not affected, neither is the power produced to do it, and neither is the total hp rating of the engine required to do it. Since 1.55 hp are required to accelerate the car under the given conditions, a simple 356 cc engine (a motorcycle sized engine!) producing 16 hp can easily do the job. It can even do the job for a typical two ton fat ass American car. Actually, I've seen people DO this kind of thing...as a joke. The sound of a car moving with that motorcycle engine is something you gotta hear to appreciate. They're not fast, but they're funny sounding! Most small cars have 90 hp engines. Car engines for street use typically range from 90hp upwards to 200hp. Remember horsepower isn't acceleration. It isn't the power either. It's the power used per second. Horsepower is directly convertible to watts. All you need is that to accelerate the car and overcome the drag. Once the car is up to speed, it's just drag to be concerned with. Since drag increases with the square of your speed, this is where you need the horsepower of an engine. To be able to accelerate quickly (to pass that truck!) even at freeway speeds and it's associated drag. The little motorcycle engine in a big fat American car just can't cut it once your speed becomes high enough for drag factors to really come into play, especially at freeway speeds. MPG is the result of many factors, with engine efficiency only being one of them. There is no direct relationship between engine efficiency and miles per gallon. The best way to get a 2000lb car to get 54 mpg is to put it in space where there is no air or tire drag and then shoving it forward (since the tires and engine are useless in space). Of course that would require a power source other than the engine and a way to use that force other than the tires. If you did all that, you could get 1000mpg in a 2000lb car and even higher! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD-E3ZCjBho The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 22-02-2018 08:11 |
| 22-02-2018 17:44 | |
| Wake★★★★★ (4034) |
Into the Night wrote:Wake wrote:litesong wrote:"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rootin'(& rottin') racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiners & many time(plus 1) threatener wake-me-up" wiffed: Tell all of us curious people - how would WE do anything....On a careful drive with stoplights, stop signs & elevation gains, I got an indicated 53MPG.... no diesel, no hybrid, no electric, no turbo-charger. Matter of fact, my car was one that lead footers complained about for poor MPG. I'll agree that full sized cars around 1968 were 2 tons. Earlier cars were MUCH heavier. My 1968 Camaro 350 SS was about 3,000 lbs. The economy cars of the time were the Ford Falcon and the Chevy Corvair and weighed in around a ton. 1 hp = 746 Newton meter seconds. Do you note that "seconds" that you don't appear to believe exists. Rolling resistance and drive train losses are in direct relationship to the weight of the vehicle and not some weirdo number you seem to pull from the air. MOST of the energy used in powering a vehicle in city/stop and go, is expended in acceleration. The 17 hp figure I estimated was an accurate estimate. The corrections for the efficiency of the engine were correct as was the additional parasitic losses. The additional 10% figure for constant speed was correct at the speed of 30 kph. If you would like I could also estimate drag which becomes the major source of power losses at and above 50 mph but which is still lower than acceleration power requirements until above perhaps 90 mph (145 kph). Not only did my calculations accurately demonstrate the approximate mileage of automobiles for that time but you can simply look up the mileages to show that they quoted such mileage in their brochures. You ended up writing nothing but garbage solely to contradict me and in so doing did nothing more than show yourself as a fool yet again. Was this to support the lies of your girlfriend litebrain? Were you attempting to say that you could make 54 mpg in these old boats when you can't even do that in a new car? |
| 22-02-2018 19:50 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21582) |
Wake wrote:Into the Night wrote:Wake wrote:litesong wrote:"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rootin'(& rottin') racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiners & many time(plus 1) threatener wake-me-up" wiffed: Tell all of us curious people - how would WE do anything....On a careful drive with stoplights, stop signs & elevation gains, I got an indicated 53MPG.... no diesel, no hybrid, no electric, no turbo-charger. Matter of fact, my car was one that lead footers complained about for poor MPG. True! They were some BEASTS back then. Wake wrote: Already accounted for. Horsepower is directly convertible to watts, which is joules per second. Go read the post again on how the joules are used over one second of acceleration. Wake wrote: True. This is mostly due to the weight on the tires and how much they deform as you roll. I was using the weirdo numbers you were pulling from the air. Wake wrote: Which is why I concentrated on the horsepower requirements for that. Wake wrote: Newtons are not convertible to horsepower. Wake wrote: Nope. I do drag calculations a fair amount of time (I work on aircraft, remember?). I know where drag comes from in a car. At the speed of the given scenario, driveline drag is your biggest component while air drag is minimal. Driveline drag includes the effect of the tires on the car. I was assuming normal street tires. Certain types of racing tires have less wheel drag. Wake wrote: If you look at the post again, you will find I used 16%, a figure higher than yours. I calculate the horsepower required of an engine to overcome it, too. Wake wrote: You could, but that wasn't the scenario you gave, was it? The air drag is dependent on the shape and size of the car body. Since that was unspecified, your 'estimate' would be nothing more than wild guess. The road surface is also part of the calculation, but it's effect is a small enough difference for most paved roads to be ignored. Wake wrote: Mileage is not dependent on thermal engine efficiency. That is just ONE factor of many. It is also dependent on how good the induction, ignition, and exhaust systems are. Older cars used carburetors. Really old cars used UPDRAFT carburetors. These waste a lot of fuel. Things improved a lot with single point injection that was popular around the mid 70's, but when the automotive manufactures finally figured out how to build a FADEC engine, multipoint injection became more popular, which is even more efficient an induction system than single point injection systems. That hold trusty Holly is junk. Ignition systems have improved a lot too. Gone are the mechanical compensations of vacuum driven distributor points. The cheap availability of hall effect sensors and the computers they connect to provides far better timing of the spark without the need for vacuum advance or any other crummy compensation scheme. The exhaust systems have suffered somewhat. Plumbing resistance increases caused by the insertion of catalytic convertors and smaller lighter tubing has reduced the ease of which air can move through the engine. Fortunately, the better induction and ignition system more than compensate for those insertion losses. Wake wrote: I contradicted you because you were doing bad bad (again) and making poor unit conversions (again). Wake wrote: Nope. I am saying the mpg in a car is not determined solely by engine efficiency. Not even the horsepower of an engine is determined by engine efficiency. You can have crappy efficiency in a 400hp engine, or you can have good efficiency in a 400hp engine. They are both still 400hp engines. Fuel mileage will change depending on the thermal efficiency of the engine, the quality of the induction, ignition, and exhaust systems, the weight of the car, the type of tires on it, the road surface it is driving on, the size and shape of the car, the prevailing humidity and temperature during the measurement, and the driving habits of the driver. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 22-02-2018 20:20 | |
| Wake★★★★★ (4034) |
Into the Night wrote: Strange that one of the questions on engineering exams is how to convert Newtons to horsepower but you are saying that they are not convertible. Now that isn't in the least surprising coming from you. "The horsepower - Metric unit number 0.0014 hp converts to 1 N m/s" Into the Night wrote: In the example I quoted it is 80% of the cause of the mileage. Exactly what is going on in your head? You seem to be growing sicker by the minute. Thermal efficiency is almost entirely the cause of mileage below 45 mph. It isn't as if this isn't in every single mechanical engineering book written but somehow you have a different brand of engineering. That is because you are not an engineer. Into the Night wrote: You seem to go out of your way to be wrong. Reciprocating gasoline fueled internal combustion engines have efficiency almost entirely reliant upon their thermal efficiency. Talking about CARBURATORS for the uninformed one of which you are is talking about a fuel/air mixture which CHANGES THE THERMAL EFFICIENCY. The same with your stupid 1920's vacuum advanced distributors which change the time of firing the cylinders which effects - oh gee - the thermal efficiency via dumping fuel/air mixture out the exhaust. What I would like to know is why you continue to post when you don't understand ANYTHING at all? Tell us more about the exhaust system you moronic fool. The ONE thing that decides the thermal efficiency of a reciprocating gasoline engine properly designed is the compression ratio it can sustain. It's your turn not jackass - tell us why a turbine doesn't have that same limitation. |
| 22-02-2018 21:55 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21582) |
Wake wrote:Into the Night wrote: The engine efficiency IS the thermal efficiency dumbass. Wake wrote: Nope. They didn't. I don't think you know what thermal efficiency (which is the engine efficiency) is. Wake wrote: A poor ignition timing is not able to achieve as high a temperature in the cylinder, so yes. Wake wrote: It is YOU that is having the problem understanding this. That's because you deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics and now Newton's law of motion. Wake wrote: What do you want to know? Wake wrote: WRONG. Anything that changes the temperature of the burn affects efficiency. There are many factors that do that, including this one. Wake wrote: It does. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 22-02-2018 22:10 | |
| Wake★★★★★ (4034) |
After that posting I don't have to say a thing. You spent your entire posting contradicting everything you said previously and ended by showing that you don't know how a jet turbine works. |
| 22-02-2018 23:35 | |
| litesong★★★★★ (2297) |
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rootin'(& rottin') racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiners & many time(plus 1) threatener wake-me-up" wiffed:....356 cc engine (a motorcycle sized engine!) producing 16 hp....My 1980 450(a few CC's less) had 37 HP & was the quickest bike in its size. I raised the gearing 15% with new sprocket ratios. It, then gave a sweet smooth highway ride & 10% better MPG, topping 75mpg, at times. Many 70 mpg rides with cool downs. Altho it only had a 3.7 gallon tank, it would often go 210miles before switching to reserve & another 40 miles on reserve, before needing to quench its thirst. A number of trips around the country & to 14,000+ foot Mt. Evans, twice & many other mountain ranges. Many slightly larger bikes now have outrageous power. Edited on 22-02-2018 23:48 |
| 23-02-2018 01:12 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21582) |
Wake wrote: I have contradicted nothing. You fly on jet engines I've fixed. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 23-02-2018 23:17 | |
| litesong★★★★★ (2297) |
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rootin'(& rottin') racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: You fly on jet engines I've fixed.I's didn't not knows thet them there jet engines has geneetals to fix 'em. Does dat meen thet them there jet engines will go Xtinct? Edited on 23-02-2018 23:45 |
| 23-02-2018 23:39 | |
| litesong★★★★★ (2297) |
litesong wrote: On a careful drive with stoplights, stop signs & elevation gains, I got an indicated 53MPG.... no diesel, no hybrid, no electric, no turbo-charger. Matter of fact, my car was one that lead footers complained about for poor MPG. On an shortned trip on da same roads twoday & an bit colder, da snow started came down.... jes as dey predik-ted. Hey's, I made back ta home & dat dare snow ken does what 'er it wants. But da trip computr says it were gettin 51.9MPG. Edited on 23-02-2018 23:59 |
Join the debate Climatte Change For Idiots!:
Related content
| Threads | Replies | Last post |
| The number one cause of climate change that the idiots in the government can't seem to see | 0 | 20-09-2023 18:59 |
| Artemis 1 on the way to the moon, idiots will disagree | 0 | 16-11-2022 18:58 |
| Quantum computing explained for idiots, you know who u r | 67 | 01-11-2022 04:08 |