Restaurant damaged by car.
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Do escape lanes work?
Next: Coalition government: Transport Secretary Philip Hammond ends Labour's 'war on motorists'
From: GT on 20 May 2010 14:43 "Nick Finnigan" <nix(a)genie.co.uk> wrote in message news:ht3r1e$p0f$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > GT wrote: >> >> Comparing CO2 output from 2 different hydrocarbons doesn't compare >> efficiencies, it simply indicates how much carbon there was in the CH >> compound. That is a measure of emmisions and a clever way of taxing the >> motor vehicle. To compare efficiency between 2 hydrocarbon burning >> devices, we have to examine how much hydrocarbon source is used to >> generate a fixed amount of power. > > 'how much' is measured by mass, or energy. > > MPG is such a measurement. > > No, it isn't. We were trying to measure efficiency, not count 'how much' emmissions are produced. mpg is a measure of efficiency - it indicate how much fuel the vehicle needs to move a certain distance. The vehicle that uses less fuel for the same distance is more efficient.
From: Adrian on 20 May 2010 14:48 "GT" <a(a)b.c> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > We were trying to measure efficiency, not count 'how much' emmissions > are produced. You don't think they're related at all? > mpg is a measure of efficiency - it indicate how much fuel the vehicle > needs to move a certain distance. The vehicle that uses less fuel for > the same distance is more efficient. If I had a lightweight motorbike which did 50mpg and a 3.5t van which did 40mpg laden, which would you say was more efficient? If I came up with a technology that allowed me to dilute petrol 50%, making 2 gallons of fuel from one of neat petrol - and applied it to a car that normally did 40mpg on neat fuel, but now does 30mpg on dilute fuel, which would you say was more efficient?
From: GT on 20 May 2010 14:59 "Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:85legjF771U11(a)mid.individual.net... > "GT" <a(a)b.c> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: > >> We were trying to measure efficiency, not count 'how much' emmissions >> are produced. > > You don't think they're related at all? > >> mpg is a measure of efficiency - it indicate how much fuel the vehicle >> needs to move a certain distance. The vehicle that uses less fuel for >> the same distance is more efficient. > > If I had a lightweight motorbike which did 50mpg and a 3.5t van which did > 40mpg laden, which would you say was more efficient? We were comparing petrol cars versus diesel cars. Comparing motorbikes with vans is just as silly as it is irrelevant to the original *car* mpg discussion. > If I came up with a technology that allowed me to dilute petrol 50%, > making 2 gallons of fuel from one of neat petrol - and applied it to a > car that normally did 40mpg on neat fuel, but now does 30mpg on dilute > fuel, which would you say was more efficient? Neither - we were talking about the efficiency of 1 car versus another. If you were to devise such a system, then it could (presumably) be applied to all cars, therefore making the same *efficiency* saving across the board. You haven't tho have you? Can I be your friend if you do?
From: BrianW on 20 May 2010 15:46 On May 18, 9:10�pm, Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > BrianW <brianwhiteh...(a)hotmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like > they were saying: > > >> I am glad that the motorists on these newsgroups have finally accepted > >> that cars are much more destructive and dangerous than bicycles. > > I don't, Doug. �I haven't seen enough evidence to support such an > > assertion. �Any chance you could post some examples, so I can consider > > it further? > > How about we do a real-life comparison test? Would that satisfy you? > > I'll drive a car into a solid wall, whilst Duhg rides a bike into a > similar building. > > 'course, for a fair test, it'd have to be from the same speed - as high > as possible, ideally. Duhg - what speed can you manage on your bike? We > can find a really steep hill if it's a help. > > Hell, I'll even source a car, if somebody promises to video the result > and put it on YouTube. That would be a completely pointless experiment, as the results are entirely predictable. Gollum's thick skull would cause more damage to the wall than any car could.
From: Nick Finnigan on 20 May 2010 16:15
GT wrote: > "Nick Finnigan" <nix(a)genie.co.uk> wrote in message > news:ht3r1e$p0f$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> GT wrote: >>> Comparing CO2 output from 2 different hydrocarbons doesn't compare >>> efficiencies, it simply indicates how much carbon there was in the CH >>> compound. That is a measure of emmisions and a clever way of taxing the >>> motor vehicle. To compare efficiency between 2 hydrocarbon burning >>> devices, we have to examine how much hydrocarbon source is used to >>> generate a fixed amount of power. >> 'how much' is measured by mass, or energy. >> >> MPG is such a measurement. >> >> No, it isn't. > > We were trying to measure efficiency, not count 'how much' emmissions are > produced. mpg is a measure of efficiency No, it isn't. - it indicate how much fuel the > vehicle needs to move a certain distance. The vehicle that uses less fuel > for the same distance is more efficient. Not if you measure volumes of fuel, rather than energy content. If I use petrol which is 8% denser and get 4% better mpg is my vehicle now more efficient? |