Hybrid cars
#151
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
"y_p_w" <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137720445.961848.188960@g44g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>>> >
>>
>> I lived in the Bay area from '78 to '83 and noticed that there were a lot
>> more imports on the road in CA than in the Midwest. I suppose that the
>> trend towards imports may even be stronger than it was back then.
>
> The city population as a whole leans towards import makes, like
> Honda, Toyota, Volvo, and BMW. The city itself has varying
> incomes, and the tendency is towards American makes in some
> of the lower income parts of town.
>
> There's only a single new car dealer in Berkeley that still sells
> an American make (a VW/Cadillac dealer). There used to be
> dealers for Olds, Buick, and Chevy until business started waning
> in the 90's. Reggie Jackson Chevrolet was the last to close. It's
> now a bookstore.
>
Is Tim Soluthwick's Toyota of Berkeley still there?
--
Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)
#152
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 16:46:52 -0600, clifto <clifto@clifto.com> wrote:
>Gordon McGrew wrote:
>> If by it you mean Intelligent Design, a federal court just held that
>> it was unconstitutional to teach it in a public school. Their finding
>> was based on a Supreme Court decision that teaching creationism (same
>> , different textbook) was unconstitutional.
>
>Nope. Creationism teaches the Bible account of creation. ID only posits
>that all this tremendously engineered stuff (the universe) didn't just
>fall out of nowhere, but was engineered by an intelligent entity.
did you hear about the early draft of "Of Pandas and People," the
premier ID textbook that was introduced into the Dover trial? It was
basically the same as the published version except that everywhere the
published version says "ID," the draft says "creationism."
>If I said the entity was Fromage from the planet Beepzap in the seventh
>dimension, you'd be all over it. ID doesn't say it wasn't him.
Either way, it isn't science.
>Gordon McGrew wrote:
>> If by it you mean Intelligent Design, a federal court just held that
>> it was unconstitutional to teach it in a public school. Their finding
>> was based on a Supreme Court decision that teaching creationism (same
>> , different textbook) was unconstitutional.
>
>Nope. Creationism teaches the Bible account of creation. ID only posits
>that all this tremendously engineered stuff (the universe) didn't just
>fall out of nowhere, but was engineered by an intelligent entity.
did you hear about the early draft of "Of Pandas and People," the
premier ID textbook that was introduced into the Dover trial? It was
basically the same as the published version except that everywhere the
published version says "ID," the draft says "creationism."
>If I said the entity was Fromage from the planet Beepzap in the seventh
>dimension, you'd be all over it. ID doesn't say it wasn't him.
Either way, it isn't science.
#153
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
clifto wrote:
> Ronnie Dobbs wrote:
> > The administration has demonstrated that they are anti-science by banning
> > federally-sanctioned stem-cell research,
>
> You're ing the liberals' lie. Stem cell research is encouraged and
> government grants are available to researchers. The only limitation is that
> research on embryonic stem cells outside 60 well-known genetically diverse
> stem cell lines cannot be Federally funded; however, the states can pass
> laws allowing the states to fund such research,
If the federal government isn't discouraging stem cell research, why is
it prohibiting federal funding to any institution that uses other
genetic lines, even if the latter are privately funded? Also the 60
lines are more like just 12 unique ones, and all have been contaminated
with non-human DNA, making them much less useful, practically useless.
#154
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
y_p_w wrote:
> Don Stauffer wrote:
>
>>y_p_w wrote:
>>
>>>I believe an internal combustion engine does have a theoretical
>>>Carnot efficiency. It's usually when it's being maxed out. However -
>>>you then run into the real world where the motor is subject to friction
>>>and attached to a car. There's increased rolling resistance of the
>>>tire (I believe roughly linear) as well as aerodynamic resistance
>>>(increases exponentially).
>>>
>>>Smaller engines are supposedly more efficient because they're
>>>being worked harder and closer to their max efficiency. If you're
>>>cruising at 70 on I-5 in a Prius, I doubt the electric motor has
>>>anything to do with it getting 60+ MPG.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>The rolling and aero resistance are not tied directly to engine rpm
>>because the gear ratio being used is indeterminant. Two cars of similar
>>weight at the same highway speed will have similar rolling resistance
>>regardless of engine speed.
>
>
> That wasn't exactly what I was getting at. You would get a maximum
> fuel economy with an engine that is maxed out for engine efficiency
> AND where the aerodynamics and rolling resistance don't increase
> to the point where they overcome any efficiency gains for being
> maxed out. A smaller engine is efficient at highway speeds because
> it's being flogged. A larger engine would be theoretically more
> efficient at higher speeds in a vacuum with no rolling resistance. Of
> course in the real world, that's where the aerodynamics take away
> gains in efficiency.
>
this has all been very interesting. I don't feel so bad about driving
my Chevette at engine-screaming speeds when I was a teenager anymore
--
Thank you,
CL Gilbert
"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor
man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard." Ecclesiastes 9:16
> Don Stauffer wrote:
>
>>y_p_w wrote:
>>
>>>I believe an internal combustion engine does have a theoretical
>>>Carnot efficiency. It's usually when it's being maxed out. However -
>>>you then run into the real world where the motor is subject to friction
>>>and attached to a car. There's increased rolling resistance of the
>>>tire (I believe roughly linear) as well as aerodynamic resistance
>>>(increases exponentially).
>>>
>>>Smaller engines are supposedly more efficient because they're
>>>being worked harder and closer to their max efficiency. If you're
>>>cruising at 70 on I-5 in a Prius, I doubt the electric motor has
>>>anything to do with it getting 60+ MPG.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>The rolling and aero resistance are not tied directly to engine rpm
>>because the gear ratio being used is indeterminant. Two cars of similar
>>weight at the same highway speed will have similar rolling resistance
>>regardless of engine speed.
>
>
> That wasn't exactly what I was getting at. You would get a maximum
> fuel economy with an engine that is maxed out for engine efficiency
> AND where the aerodynamics and rolling resistance don't increase
> to the point where they overcome any efficiency gains for being
> maxed out. A smaller engine is efficient at highway speeds because
> it's being flogged. A larger engine would be theoretically more
> efficient at higher speeds in a vacuum with no rolling resistance. Of
> course in the real world, that's where the aerodynamics take away
> gains in efficiency.
>
this has all been very interesting. I don't feel so bad about driving
my Chevette at engine-screaming speeds when I was a teenager anymore
--
Thank you,
CL Gilbert
"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor
man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard." Ecclesiastes 9:16
#155
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
barry@psyber.com wrote:
> If hybrids are so great, then why aren't they used in Japan or European
> countries where gas is more expensive? Answer: poor return on investment.
>
> 1. They cost more.
> 2. They depreciate quicker (and will as hybrid technologh improves).
> 3. A high mileage car (like a Honda Civic or a Toyota Corolla or Echo)
> will get comparable gas mileage with conventional engine technology.
>
> So... Calculate the increased cost of buying a hybrid and compare it
> with the gas savings and see how long it takes to break even.
>
> Compare that with the cost savings you'd get by simply buying a good
> mileage internal combustion engine car.
>
> Then decide for yourself.
>
> I get a kick outta the SUV hybrids. Add a bunch of girth and then try
> to compensate by putting a hybrid engine in it. Sort of like buying
> a Hybrid Humvee.
>
> b.
One reason is that performance is not such a big issue, and typical cars
there have smaller engines, and already get better milage than typical
cars sold in US. Hybrids are way to keep performance AND high milage.
yeah, you pay a premium for a car with good milage and performance
compared to just small engined car, but US buyers are willing and able
to pay such a premium.
> If hybrids are so great, then why aren't they used in Japan or European
> countries where gas is more expensive? Answer: poor return on investment.
>
> 1. They cost more.
> 2. They depreciate quicker (and will as hybrid technologh improves).
> 3. A high mileage car (like a Honda Civic or a Toyota Corolla or Echo)
> will get comparable gas mileage with conventional engine technology.
>
> So... Calculate the increased cost of buying a hybrid and compare it
> with the gas savings and see how long it takes to break even.
>
> Compare that with the cost savings you'd get by simply buying a good
> mileage internal combustion engine car.
>
> Then decide for yourself.
>
> I get a kick outta the SUV hybrids. Add a bunch of girth and then try
> to compensate by putting a hybrid engine in it. Sort of like buying
> a Hybrid Humvee.
>
> b.
One reason is that performance is not such a big issue, and typical cars
there have smaller engines, and already get better milage than typical
cars sold in US. Hybrids are way to keep performance AND high milage.
yeah, you pay a premium for a car with good milage and performance
compared to just small engined car, but US buyers are willing and able
to pay such a premium.
#156
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
y_p_w wrote:
>
> That wasn't exactly what I was getting at. You would get a maximum
> fuel economy with an engine that is maxed out for engine efficiency
> AND where the aerodynamics and rolling resistance don't increase
> to the point where they overcome any efficiency gains for being
> maxed out. A smaller engine is efficient at highway speeds because
> it's being flogged. A larger engine would be theoretically more
> efficient at higher speeds in a vacuum with no rolling resistance. Of
> course in the real world, that's where the aerodynamics take away
> gains in efficiency.
>
The engine with a smaller throttle opening is less efficient even on a
dyno. In fact, that is the way specific fuel consumption is measured.
So as long as we have the same car with the same hp requirement, and the
large engine is not wide open, a smaller engine with a higher percentage
throttle opening will be more efficient.
Yes, you can say the small engine is being flogged, but as long as it is
designed for continuous operation at its max hp rating (i.e., cooling
and bearings adequate) there is nothing wrong with that. Old beetle
used to be able to cruise all day at full throttle.
>
> That wasn't exactly what I was getting at. You would get a maximum
> fuel economy with an engine that is maxed out for engine efficiency
> AND where the aerodynamics and rolling resistance don't increase
> to the point where they overcome any efficiency gains for being
> maxed out. A smaller engine is efficient at highway speeds because
> it's being flogged. A larger engine would be theoretically more
> efficient at higher speeds in a vacuum with no rolling resistance. Of
> course in the real world, that's where the aerodynamics take away
> gains in efficiency.
>
The engine with a smaller throttle opening is less efficient even on a
dyno. In fact, that is the way specific fuel consumption is measured.
So as long as we have the same car with the same hp requirement, and the
large engine is not wide open, a smaller engine with a higher percentage
throttle opening will be more efficient.
Yes, you can say the small engine is being flogged, but as long as it is
designed for continuous operation at its max hp rating (i.e., cooling
and bearings adequate) there is nothing wrong with that. Old beetle
used to be able to cruise all day at full throttle.
#157
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
Don Stauffer wrote:
> Yes, you can say the small engine is being flogged, but as long as it is
> designed for continuous operation at its max hp rating (i.e., cooling
> and bearings adequate) there is nothing wrong with that. Old beetle
> used to be able to cruise all day at full throttle.
How would an air-cooled engine do on a dyno at full-throttle? I'm
curious how they would have been tested.
#158
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
"clifto" <clifto@clifto.com> wrote in message
news:f4au93-bqu.ln1@remote.clifto.com...
> Ronnie Dobbs wrote:
>> Art wrote:
>>> "clifto" <clifto@clifto.com> wrote...
>
> Then those who insist on using embryonic/fetal stem cells shall have to
> find private funding.
The venture capitalist won't fund stem cell research until more research is
done where it is at the level that those venture cabalist can make
investment decisions.
The net result is that the companies will start in other countries where the
research is being done and has the experienced people that are needed for
these start up companies.
The net result is that the Bush policy is highly anti-business in the US and
provides other countries to become dominant in what will be the biological
equivalent of Silicon Valley for medical companies. Those companies will
become the economic and power base for the Governments leading to a decline
of the US.
No matter what Bush and Fox says, the Bush administration is implementing a
anti-business, anti-powerful US, an US economic decline.
#159
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
"Rob" <rdbdriver@blomand.net> wrote in message
news:dqgpic$9l5g$1@news3.infoave.net...
>
> "Ronnie Dobbs" <watNOSPAMuzi@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Wt-> The
> Your welcome to have your own opinions, but before you bash this
> administration on stem-cell research, remember this is the first
> administration to ever open the doors to do any research at all on stem
> cells. And they only put limits form aborted babies.
Is that the lie that Fox is passing around?
The first stem cells were grown at the University of Wisconsin in 1998 with
work going on before that. Typically this type work is funded by research
organizations in the Federal Government. That means stem cell work was
almost certainly being funded by the Clinton administration.
There was previous research on stem cells trying to understand them almost
certainly funded by the Clinton administration and probably other
administrations.
Only the Bush administration tried to shut down the research with the belief
that life begins at conception. I do not believe that life beginning at
conception is in the Bible and Bush is just believing some made up
religious theory.
It is essentially the as the Muslim bombers believing they will have 72
virgins in heaven just because some body said it. So we have a gullible
world leader that can be led around by the nose by anybody that claimed
something is religious no matter what is said.
#160
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
y_p_w wrote:
> Don Stauffer wrote:
>
>
>>Yes, you can say the small engine is being flogged, but as long as it is
>>designed for continuous operation at its max hp rating (i.e., cooling
>>and bearings adequate) there is nothing wrong with that. Old beetle
>>used to be able to cruise all day at full throttle.
>
>
> How would an air-cooled engine do on a dyno at full-throttle? I'm
> curious how they would have been tested.
>
With a big-honkin fan blowing hot air out of the dyno room. No big deal.
Pratt&Whitney had dyno cells that could take the 4000 plus horsepower of
an air-cooled R-4360 back in the 40s and 50s. Roof mounted fans provided
cooling air that would have been provided by natural air flow if the
engine had been on an airplane wing instead of in the dyno cell.
> Don Stauffer wrote:
>
>
>>Yes, you can say the small engine is being flogged, but as long as it is
>>designed for continuous operation at its max hp rating (i.e., cooling
>>and bearings adequate) there is nothing wrong with that. Old beetle
>>used to be able to cruise all day at full throttle.
>
>
> How would an air-cooled engine do on a dyno at full-throttle? I'm
> curious how they would have been tested.
>
With a big-honkin fan blowing hot air out of the dyno room. No big deal.
Pratt&Whitney had dyno cells that could take the 4000 plus horsepower of
an air-cooled R-4360 back in the 40s and 50s. Roof mounted fans provided
cooling air that would have been provided by natural air flow if the
engine had been on an airplane wing instead of in the dyno cell.
#161
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
"Steve" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message
newsdGdnQTtmeW5wUzeRVn-pg@texas.net...
> y_p_w wrote:
>
>> Don Stauffer wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Yes, you can say the small engine is being flogged, but as long as it is
>>>designed for continuous operation at its max hp rating (i.e., cooling
>>>and bearings adequate) there is nothing wrong with that. Old beetle
>>>used to be able to cruise all day at full throttle.
>>
>>
>> How would an air-cooled engine do on a dyno at full-throttle? I'm
>> curious how they would have been tested.
>>
>
> With a big-honkin fan blowing hot air out of the dyno room. No big deal.
>
> Pratt&Whitney had dyno cells that could take the 4000 plus horsepower of
> an air-cooled R-4360 back in the 40s and 50s. Roof mounted fans provided
> cooling air that would have been provided by natural air flow if the
> engine had been on an airplane wing instead of in the dyno cell.
>
>
Even liquid-cooled engines would need a fan to blow air at the radiator.
The dyno room was a very loud environment whenever a vehicle was running.
The rollers were coated with a non-skid surface so the tires running on
those rollers were very loud, we had a fan directed at the radiator, we had
the dyno motors and cooling fans for the motors, we had an exhaust duct fan
running, and of course, there was the noise from the subject vehicle.
--
Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)
#162
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
Ray O wrote:
> "Steve" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message
> newsdGdnQTtmeW5wUzeRVn-pg@texas.net...
>
>>y_p_w wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Don Stauffer wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Yes, you can say the small engine is being flogged, but as long as it is
>>>>designed for continuous operation at its max hp rating (i.e., cooling
>>>>and bearings adequate) there is nothing wrong with that. Old beetle
>>>>used to be able to cruise all day at full throttle.
>>>
>>>
>>>How would an air-cooled engine do on a dyno at full-throttle? I'm
>>>curious how they would have been tested.
>>>
>>
>>With a big-honkin fan blowing hot air out of the dyno room. No big deal.
>>
>>Pratt&Whitney had dyno cells that could take the 4000 plus horsepower of
>>an air-cooled R-4360 back in the 40s and 50s. Roof mounted fans provided
>>cooling air that would have been provided by natural air flow if the
>>engine had been on an airplane wing instead of in the dyno cell.
>>
>>
>
>
> Even liquid-cooled engines would need a fan to blow air at the radiator.
Most dyno cells are plumbed to bring coolant in from and take it away to
a remote radiator.
> The dyno room was a very loud environment whenever a vehicle was running.
> The rollers were coated with a non-skid surface so the tires running on
> those rollers were very loud, we had a fan directed at the radiator, we had
> the dyno motors and cooling fans for the motors, we had an exhaust duct fan
> running, and of course, there was the noise from the subject vehicle.
Oh, you're talking chassis dyno. Different animal. Not nearly as loud
(engines on cell dynos don't necessarily have mufflers. Although I did
hear a '68 Charger with a 525 Mopar Performance 440-based crate motor do
a run on a chassis dyno which drew a standing ovation from everyone in
the shop :-) They'd been listening to a turbo Supra for about an hour
before that and were sick of vacuum cleaner noises.
> "Steve" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message
> newsdGdnQTtmeW5wUzeRVn-pg@texas.net...
>
>>y_p_w wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Don Stauffer wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Yes, you can say the small engine is being flogged, but as long as it is
>>>>designed for continuous operation at its max hp rating (i.e., cooling
>>>>and bearings adequate) there is nothing wrong with that. Old beetle
>>>>used to be able to cruise all day at full throttle.
>>>
>>>
>>>How would an air-cooled engine do on a dyno at full-throttle? I'm
>>>curious how they would have been tested.
>>>
>>
>>With a big-honkin fan blowing hot air out of the dyno room. No big deal.
>>
>>Pratt&Whitney had dyno cells that could take the 4000 plus horsepower of
>>an air-cooled R-4360 back in the 40s and 50s. Roof mounted fans provided
>>cooling air that would have been provided by natural air flow if the
>>engine had been on an airplane wing instead of in the dyno cell.
>>
>>
>
>
> Even liquid-cooled engines would need a fan to blow air at the radiator.
Most dyno cells are plumbed to bring coolant in from and take it away to
a remote radiator.
> The dyno room was a very loud environment whenever a vehicle was running.
> The rollers were coated with a non-skid surface so the tires running on
> those rollers were very loud, we had a fan directed at the radiator, we had
> the dyno motors and cooling fans for the motors, we had an exhaust duct fan
> running, and of course, there was the noise from the subject vehicle.
Oh, you're talking chassis dyno. Different animal. Not nearly as loud
(engines on cell dynos don't necessarily have mufflers. Although I did
hear a '68 Charger with a 525 Mopar Performance 440-based crate motor do
a run on a chassis dyno which drew a standing ovation from everyone in
the shop :-) They'd been listening to a turbo Supra for about an hour
before that and were sick of vacuum cleaner noises.
#163
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 16:46:52 -0600, clifto <clifto@clifto.com> wrote:
>>Nope. Creationism teaches the Bible account of creation. ID only posits
>>that all this tremendously engineered stuff (the universe) didn't just
>>fall out of nowhere, but was engineered by an intelligent entity.
>
> did you hear about the early draft of "Of Pandas and People," the
> premier ID textbook that was introduced into the Dover trial? It was
> basically the same as the published version except that everywhere the
> published version says "ID," the draft says "creationism."
I don't speak for the author, and you don't either. I can think of any
number of reasons I might make such a change to my own manuscript, none
of them having to do with hiding any religious inclination.
>>If I said the entity was Fromage from the planet Beepzap in the seventh
>>dimension, you'd be all over it. ID doesn't say it wasn't him.
>
> Either way, it isn't science.
Neither is evolution. It's nothing more than empirical observation extended
beyond its reach into a theory, a conclusion used to find evidence that
supports it. You want science? Disprove intelligent design.
Last word is yours.
--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 16:46:52 -0600, clifto <clifto@clifto.com> wrote:
>>Nope. Creationism teaches the Bible account of creation. ID only posits
>>that all this tremendously engineered stuff (the universe) didn't just
>>fall out of nowhere, but was engineered by an intelligent entity.
>
> did you hear about the early draft of "Of Pandas and People," the
> premier ID textbook that was introduced into the Dover trial? It was
> basically the same as the published version except that everywhere the
> published version says "ID," the draft says "creationism."
I don't speak for the author, and you don't either. I can think of any
number of reasons I might make such a change to my own manuscript, none
of them having to do with hiding any religious inclination.
>>If I said the entity was Fromage from the planet Beepzap in the seventh
>>dimension, you'd be all over it. ID doesn't say it wasn't him.
>
> Either way, it isn't science.
Neither is evolution. It's nothing more than empirical observation extended
beyond its reach into a theory, a conclusion used to find evidence that
supports it. You want science? Disprove intelligent design.
Last word is yours.
--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.
#164
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 20:14:01 -0600, in misc.transport.road
clifto <clifto@clifto.com> wrote in <90i8a3-p36.ln1@remote.clifto.com>:
>Gordon McGrew wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 16:46:52 -0600, clifto <clifto@clifto.com> wrote:
>>>Nope. Creationism teaches the Bible account of creation. ID only posits
>>>that all this tremendously engineered stuff (the universe) didn't just
>>>fall out of nowhere, but was engineered by an intelligent entity.
>>
>> did you hear about the early draft of "Of Pandas and People," the
>> premier ID textbook that was introduced into the Dover trial? It was
>> basically the same as the published version except that everywhere the
>> published version says "ID," the draft says "creationism."
>
>I don't speak for the author, and you don't either. I can think of any
>number of reasons I might make such a change to my own manuscript, none
>of them having to do with hiding any religious inclination.
Judge Jones was persuaded by the evidence - and the timing of the change
- that ID is just creationism hidden in lab coats.
>>>If I said the entity was Fromage from the planet Beepzap in the seventh
>>>dimension, you'd be all over it. ID doesn't say it wasn't him.
>>
>> Either way, it isn't science.
>
>Neither is evolution. It's nothing more than empirical observation extended
>beyond its reach into a theory, a conclusion used to find evidence that
>supports it. You want science? Disprove intelligent design.
Science doesn't work that way. When Intelligent Design has some evidence
available, it will be considered.
>Last word is yours.
Read Judge Jones's entire opinion in Kitzmiller. Everyone who has been
taken in by 'intelligent design' should hang their heads in shame at how
bad of a con it was that took them in.
clifto <clifto@clifto.com> wrote in <90i8a3-p36.ln1@remote.clifto.com>:
>Gordon McGrew wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 16:46:52 -0600, clifto <clifto@clifto.com> wrote:
>>>Nope. Creationism teaches the Bible account of creation. ID only posits
>>>that all this tremendously engineered stuff (the universe) didn't just
>>>fall out of nowhere, but was engineered by an intelligent entity.
>>
>> did you hear about the early draft of "Of Pandas and People," the
>> premier ID textbook that was introduced into the Dover trial? It was
>> basically the same as the published version except that everywhere the
>> published version says "ID," the draft says "creationism."
>
>I don't speak for the author, and you don't either. I can think of any
>number of reasons I might make such a change to my own manuscript, none
>of them having to do with hiding any religious inclination.
Judge Jones was persuaded by the evidence - and the timing of the change
- that ID is just creationism hidden in lab coats.
>>>If I said the entity was Fromage from the planet Beepzap in the seventh
>>>dimension, you'd be all over it. ID doesn't say it wasn't him.
>>
>> Either way, it isn't science.
>
>Neither is evolution. It's nothing more than empirical observation extended
>beyond its reach into a theory, a conclusion used to find evidence that
>supports it. You want science? Disprove intelligent design.
Science doesn't work that way. When Intelligent Design has some evidence
available, it will be considered.
>Last word is yours.
Read Judge Jones's entire opinion in Kitzmiller. Everyone who has been
taken in by 'intelligent design' should hang their heads in shame at how
bad of a con it was that took them in.
#165
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
y_p_w wrote:
> Don Stauffer wrote:
>
>
>>Yes, you can say the small engine is being flogged, but as long as it is
>>designed for continuous operation at its max hp rating (i.e., cooling
>>and bearings adequate) there is nothing wrong with that. Old beetle
>>used to be able to cruise all day at full throttle.
>
>
> How would an air-cooled engine do on a dyno at full-throttle? I'm
> curious how they would have been tested.
>
I have seen dynos with fans. The VW of course has its own fan, but the
output of the fan at the dyno station could supplement it. I don't
remember for sure which way the fan blew on the bug- if it picked up air
from the hood, that was probably in a low pressure area, and yet still
cooled the car okay, so maybe the engine's own fan would be sufficient.
> Don Stauffer wrote:
>
>
>>Yes, you can say the small engine is being flogged, but as long as it is
>>designed for continuous operation at its max hp rating (i.e., cooling
>>and bearings adequate) there is nothing wrong with that. Old beetle
>>used to be able to cruise all day at full throttle.
>
>
> How would an air-cooled engine do on a dyno at full-throttle? I'm
> curious how they would have been tested.
>
I have seen dynos with fans. The VW of course has its own fan, but the
output of the fan at the dyno station could supplement it. I don't
remember for sure which way the fan blew on the bug- if it picked up air
from the hood, that was probably in a low pressure area, and yet still
cooled the car okay, so maybe the engine's own fan would be sufficient.