Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in
news74uk.19878$Mh5.18116@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

>
>
> Jim Yanik wrote:
>
>> Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in
>> news:ebWtk.19269$Mh5.8797@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Tegger wrote:
>>>
>>>>Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in
>>>>news7ntk.185026 $102.3536@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Elle wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Tegger" <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes, that's how lobby groups act; they get laws and
>>>>>>>regulations passed,
>>>>>>>thereby using the power of the state to effect their
>>>>>>>desired changes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You see lobbyists making laws. I see members of Congress,
>>>>>>the President, and those who elect them doing so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>After they have been paid off by lobbyists.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yep. If there's a governmental to suck on, the lobbyists will be
>>>>right in there like little piglets attacking a sow. ADM didn't get
>>>>all the spoils they did by sitting on their hands.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, I have often referred to friends that this country has become a
>>>giant suckling pig no longer able to feed or otherwise take care of
>>>itself.
>>>
>>>All this in less than fifty years!
>>>
>>>Begin the blame with that good ol' crook, LBJ in the 1960's.
>>>
>>>JT
>>>
>>
>>
>> no,begin with the Fabians in the early 1900's;they are the ones who
>> began working to get socialists in education and gov't.
>> the avalanche point came in the late 1960s.
>>
>
>
> Sorry, but this country was clearly the top of the heap in 1963 under
> JFK. The decline began in 1965 with the passage ot the voting rights
> and civlil rights laws during LBJ's, (who was concerned about his
> legacy), administration.
>
> Socialism has always been a factor...
>
> JT
>
>

1934 NFA was one of the first major intrusions on the Constitution.
It enacted a tax that was clearly NOT for raising revenue,but solely to
make ownership of certain items prohibitive.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

Edward W. Thompson <thomeduk1@btopenworld.com> wrote in
newsIydnShEjPrneSXVnZ2dnUVZ8h6dnZ2d@bt.com:

>
> On 29 Aug 2008 12:15:35 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
>
>>Edward W. Thompson <thomeduk1@btopenworld.com> wrote in news:a-
>>WdnchZ_4AVFyrVnZ2dnUVZ8s7inZ2d@bt.com:
>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:15:06 -0700, "Elle" <honda.lioness@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote
>>>>>>> it's gross consumption that's the biggest problem,
>>>>> it makes no sense for what is supposed to be the most
>>>>> technologically advanced nation on earth.
>>>>
>>>>Hyper-consumption of oil helped the U.S. grow to become the
>>>>most technologically advanced. It makes complete sense.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Only an American would think that.
>>>
>>> If the US is so technologically advanced how come their autos are
>>> so
>>> deplorably inefficient in today's climate of high fuel prices? Is
>>> it because you are no quite as smart as you seem to think you are?
>>>
>>
>>actually,the US leads the world in innovation,but we aren't so good in
>>practical application of our technology,as evidenced by VCRs,autos and
>>some other things. We are also the best in medical care.Foreigners
>>prefer to come to the *US* for thier complex surgeries and treatment.
>
> Sorry, but you are living in the past. The USA is in decline both
> technologically

see who patents the most tech stuff every year.
we also lead in new pharmaceuticals development.

> and most unfortunately morally. Even more
> unfortunately, most Americans are completely oblivious of what is
> going on both inside and outside of their country and fail to
> recognize the problems they and their country have.
>
> With respect to medical care, perhaps some of the most respected
> surgeons and doctors practice in the USA but how many have access to
> their expertise? Precious few, as a very substantial minority of
> citizens simply are unable to afford medical care.
>

whereas in other countries,people have to wait long for or simply cannot
get procedures readily available in the US.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

"Edward W. Thompson" <thomeduk1@btopenworld.com> wrote
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:15:06 -0700, "Elle"
> <honda.lioness@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote
>>>>> it's gross consumption that's the biggest problem,
>>> it makes no sense for what is supposed to be the most
>>> technologically advanced nation on earth.
>>
>>Hyper-consumption of oil helped the U.S. grow to become
>>the
>>most technologically advanced. It makes complete sense.
>>
>
> Only an American would think that.

Are there other countries more technologically advanced? I
guess it depends on the gage used, but ISTM, with so much
instant this and that in the U.S., it may lead.

I do think other countries are certainly far more advanced
on other fronts, leaving the U.S. in the dust.

 

"Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote
> And most laws have loopholes that are intentional. Never
> leave it to a politician to preach morality.

I think it is very easy to criticize government leaders.
What is far more difficult is offering to become a
government leader and do better.

 

"Runtime Error" <bsod@nospam> wrote in message
news:HbidnRBln-oTdC7VnZ2dnUVZ_r_inZ2d@comcast.com...
> Over the last few months, all the gas stations in my area have quit
> selling pure gas-- just the adulterated stuff. You can't find 100% petrol
> any more.
>
> As the percentage of alcohol in my tank ('07 Accord V6 EX-L sedan)
> increased, my mileage decreased-- consistently 10%-12% less than it used
> to be on the same 400 mile round trip I make on the interstate 2-3 times a
> month. Used to get in the low 30's-- now get in high 20's....
>
> Is this the great "fool the public" scam or what-- paying for adulterated
> fuel that doesn't give you full value??
>

So guys...thanks for all 63 varied political, philosophical and economic
perspectives.

But to refocus on my original question, WTF did my mileage drop-- starting
with my first half-tank of Ethanol Added and increasingly reduce by about
10% less running on all Ethanol Added-- with everything else fine (tire
pressures, fluid levels, air cleaner, etc., etc.-- and only 9500 miles on
the odometer?

 

On Aug 30, 6:30 pm, "Runtime Error" <bsod@nospam> wrote:
> "Runtime Error" <bsod@nospam> wrote in message
>
> news:HbidnRBln-oTdC7VnZ2dnUVZ_r_inZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> > Over the last few months, all the gas stations in my area have quit
> > selling pure gas-- just the adulterated stuff. You can't find 100% petrol
> > any more.
>
> > As the percentage of alcohol in my tank ('07 Accord V6 EX-L sedan)
> > increased, my mileage decreased-- consistently 10%-12% less than it used
> > to be on the same 400 mile round trip I make on the interstate 2-3 times a
> > month. Used to get in the low 30's-- now get in high 20's....
>
> > Is this the great "fool the public" scam or what-- paying for adulterated
> > fuel that doesn't give you full value??
>
> So guys...thanks for all 63 varied political, philosophical and economic
> perspectives.
>
> But to refocus on my original question, WTF did my mileage drop-- starting
> with my first half-tank of Ethanol Added and increasingly reduce by about
> 10% less running on all Ethanol Added-- with everything else fine (tire
> pressures, fluid levels, air cleaner, etc., etc.-- and only 9500 miles on
> the odometer?


According to something I just read:

"ethanol contains about two-thirds the energy content of gasoline,
gallon for gallon.

That means a gallon of pure, corn-based ethanol would reduce mileage
by 30 percent and a 10 percent blend -- as Oregon now requires -- by
about 3 percent. Gasoline can vary a bit, batch to batch, so a drop of
2 percent to 4 percent is a safe estimate, these experts say. "

"Experts" claim 3%, real world consumers claim 10% (according to the
same article) so you're
right on the money as far as getting hosed.

 

Elle wrote:
> "Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote
>
>>And most laws have loopholes that are intentional. Never
>>leave it to a politician to preach morality.
>
>
> I think it is very easy to criticize government leaders.
> What is far more difficult is offering to become a
> government leader and do better.
>
>


Exactly what Sarah Palen did in Alaska.

Next question...

JT

 

Runtime Error wrote:

> "Runtime Error" <bsod@nospam> wrote in message
> news:HbidnRBln-oTdC7VnZ2dnUVZ_r_inZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>>Over the last few months, all the gas stations in my area have quit
>>selling pure gas-- just the adulterated stuff. You can't find 100% petrol
>>any more.
>>
>>As the percentage of alcohol in my tank ('07 Accord V6 EX-L sedan)
>>increased, my mileage decreased-- consistently 10%-12% less than it used
>>to be on the same 400 mile round trip I make on the interstate 2-3 times a
>>month. Used to get in the low 30's-- now get in high 20's....
>>
>>Is this the great "fool the public" scam or what-- paying for adulterated
>>fuel that doesn't give you full value??
>>
>
>
> So guys...thanks for all 63 varied political, philosophical and economic
> perspectives.
>
> But to refocus on my original question, WTF did my mileage drop-- starting
> with my first half-tank of Ethanol Added and increasingly reduce by about
> 10% less running on all Ethanol Added-- with everything else fine (tire
> pressures, fluid levels, air cleaner, etc., etc.-- and only 9500 miles on
> the odometer?
>
>


That's simple... Ethanol yields less energy than does pure gas..

JT

 

Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in
news:j2Auk.21674$Mh5.6817@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

>
>
> Elle wrote:
>> "Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote
>>
>>>And most laws have loopholes that are intentional. Never
>>>leave it to a politician to preach morality.
>>
>>
>> I think it is very easy to criticize government leaders.
>> What is far more difficult is offering to become a
>> government leader and do better.
>>
>>
>
>
> Exactly what Sarah Palen did in Alaska.
>
> Next question...
>
> JT

I think I'd trust Palin more than I would either Biden or BHO.
Both of those guys have proven track records;not good.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in
news:I3Auk.21677$Mh5.12300@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

>
>
> Runtime Error wrote:
>
>> "Runtime Error" <bsod@nospam> wrote in message
>> news:HbidnRBln-oTdC7VnZ2dnUVZ_r_inZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>>>Over the last few months, all the gas stations in my area have quit
>>>selling pure gas-- just the adulterated stuff. You can't find 100%
>>>petrol any more.
>>>
>>>As the percentage of alcohol in my tank ('07 Accord V6 EX-L sedan)
>>>increased, my mileage decreased-- consistently 10%-12% less than it
>>>used to be on the same 400 mile round trip I make on the interstate
>>>2-3 times a month. Used to get in the low 30's-- now get in high
>>>20's....
>>>
>>>Is this the great "fool the public" scam or what-- paying for
>>>adulterated fuel that doesn't give you full value??
>>>
>>
>>
>> So guys...thanks for all 63 varied political, philosophical and
>> economic perspectives.
>>
>> But to refocus on my original question, WTF did my mileage drop--
>> starting with my first half-tank of Ethanol Added and increasingly
>> reduce by about 10% less running on all Ethanol Added-- with
>> everything else fine (tire pressures, fluid levels, air cleaner,
>> etc., etc.-- and only 9500 miles on the odometer?
>>
>>
>
>
> That's simple... Ethanol yields less energy than does pure gas..
>
> JT
>

but still has SOME energy content,so 10% in gas is not going to produce a
10% LOSS of energy,but some lesser amount of drop,I suspect less than 5%.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

Jim Yanik wrote:
> Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in
> news:j2Auk.21674$Mh5.6817@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
>
>>
>>Elle wrote:
>>
>>>"Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>And most laws have loopholes that are intentional. Never
>>>>leave it to a politician to preach morality.
>>>
>>>
>>>I think it is very easy to criticize government leaders.
>>>What is far more difficult is offering to become a
>>>government leader and do better.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>Exactly what Sarah Palen did in Alaska.
>>
>>Next question...
>>
>>JT
>
>
> I think I'd trust Palin more than I would either Biden or BHO.
> Both of those guys have proven track records;not good.
>


And, she is the only one of the four, (including McCain) that has
executive experience.

Her entry into the race has me no longer sitting on the fence..

JT

 

Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in
news:TOIuk.22211$Mh5.11513@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

>
>
> Jim Yanik wrote:
>> Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in
>> news:j2Auk.21674$Mh5.6817@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Elle wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>And most laws have loopholes that are intentional. Never
>>>>>leave it to a politician to preach morality.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I think it is very easy to criticize government leaders.
>>>>What is far more difficult is offering to become a
>>>>government leader and do better.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Exactly what Sarah Palen did in Alaska.
>>>
>>>Next question...
>>>
>>>JT
>>
>>
>> I think I'd trust Palin more than I would either Biden or BHO.
>> Both of those guys have proven track records;not good.
>>
>
>
> And, she is the only one of the four, (including McCain) that has
> executive experience.
>
> Her entry into the race has me no longer sitting on the fence..
>
> JT
>
>

being a military officer gives a person "executive experience".
(leadership and running operations.)
Plus McCain has his long Senate experience.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

Jim Yanik wrote:
> Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in
> news:I3Auk.21677$Mh5.12300@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
>>
>> Runtime Error wrote:
>>
>>> "Runtime Error" <bsod@nospam> wrote in message
>>> news:HbidnRBln-oTdC7VnZ2dnUVZ_r_inZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>
>>>> Over the last few months, all the gas stations in my area have quit
>>>> selling pure gas-- just the adulterated stuff. You can't find 100%
>>>> petrol any more.
>>>>
>>>> As the percentage of alcohol in my tank ('07 Accord V6 EX-L sedan)
>>>> increased, my mileage decreased-- consistently 10%-12% less than it
>>>> used to be on the same 400 mile round trip I make on the interstate
>>>> 2-3 times a month. Used to get in the low 30's-- now get in high
>>>> 20's....
>>>>
>>>> Is this the great "fool the public" scam or what-- paying for
>>>> adulterated fuel that doesn't give you full value??
>>>>
>>>
>>> So guys...thanks for all 63 varied political, philosophical and
>>> economic perspectives.
>>>
>>> But to refocus on my original question, WTF did my mileage drop--
>>> starting with my first half-tank of Ethanol Added and increasingly
>>> reduce by about 10% less running on all Ethanol Added-- with
>>> everything else fine (tire pressures, fluid levels, air cleaner,
>>> etc., etc.-- and only 9500 miles on the odometer?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> That's simple... Ethanol yields less energy than does pure gas..
>>
>> JT
>>
>
> but still has SOME energy content,so 10% in gas is not going to produce a
> 10% LOSS of energy,but some lesser amount of drop,I suspect less than 5%.
>

but ethanol is also less dense, so there will be less energy content by
volume as well as chemically.

 

C. E. White wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:F9SdnV9VYeOJECrVnZ2dnUVZ_qDinZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>> Elle wrote:
>>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote
>>>>>> it's gross consumption that's the biggest problem,
>>>> it makes no sense for what is supposed to be the most technologically
>>>> advanced nation on earth.
>>> Hyper-consumption of oil helped the U.S. grow to become the most
>>> technologically advanced. It makes complete sense.
>> eh? europe's not technologically advanced? why are their cars better
>> than ours?
>
> In what way?

er, solid rear axles? leaf springs?


> Becasue they fall apart after 5 years and force Customers to by
> new ones?

like ford and chevy and chrysler? dude, we /invented/ lifetime limitation.




> Becasue they cost a lot more?

only when imported and sold to dumb americans. ever been to germany?
mercedes have plastic seats and "TAXI" signs on the roof.



> Becasue they are generally smaller?

eh?



>
>> why are their planes fly-by-wire and ours aren't?
>
> Where did you get that idea.....Maybe our old designs (like the 737) are not
> fly by wire, but what makes you think new designs like the 777 are not?

name a single airbus that's not fly by wire.



> The
> US has been using fly by wire design in milatary planes since the 70's.

concorde, whose technology is used extensively in airbus designs, was
fly by wire in 1969.


>
>> why can they launch 10 [civil] tons geosynchronous, and we can't?
>
> Again, where did you get that idea. The heaviest satellite launched by the
> Europeans is only around 6.5 tons.

that's misleading - that's a single satellite. ariane carries a 9,600kg
payload [that's /two/ satellites] to geosynchronous. the delta iv heavy
can lift more, but with only two launches, and only one successfully,
that's not exactly "operational".



> Check
> http://www.boeing.com/special/sea-launch/history.htm - Boeing has launched
> similar sized satellites.

yeah. meanwhile /american/ companies are paying the /french/ and
/russians/ to launch their satellites. that's insane.

 

Jim Yanik wrote:
> Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in
> news:nxWtk.19289$Mh5.8420@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
>>
>> jim beam wrote:
>>
>>> Elle wrote:
>>>
>>>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote
>>>>
>>>>>>> it's gross consumption that's the biggest problem,
>>>>> it makes no sense for what is supposed to be the most technologically
>>>>> advanced nation on earth.
>>>>
>>>> Hyper-consumption of oil helped the U.S. grow to become the most
>>>> technologically advanced. It makes complete sense.
>>>
>>> eh? europe's not technologically advanced? why are their cars better
>>> than ours? why are their planes fly-by-wire and ours aren't? why can
>>> they launch 10 [civil] tons geosynchronous, and we can't?
>>
>> Er, the L1011 was fly-by-wire by design...
>>
>> JT
>>
>>
>
> so's the F-16.
>

so are /most/ supersonics - it's a control/stability thing. my point is
that airbus is all f.b.w. boeing, the largest producer in the world, is
only finally getting into it decades later. and that's not leadership.