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: boltar2003 on 19 May 2010 08:48 On 19 May 2010 12:30:11 GMT Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote: >It didn't. Clearly, my reply has terminally confused you, since you seem >to have totally the wrong end of the stick. No, I was simply talking about mpg which I don't think is a "vague" measure of efficiency. >> is utter rubbish. Have you never heard of chemistry? Clue - only just >> over 50% of oil is used for fuel products. > >Correct. The rest is used for lubrication, for... And why? Because the >different fractions aren't interchangable. Er, no. Most of the rest is used in the chemicals industry and if you'd bothered to read the link I supplied it would have explained to you how a lot of the fractions are interchangable as fuels thanks to the cracking process. I assume you did at least do a couple of years of chemistry at school since this is pretty basic stuff? B2003
From: Brimstone on 19 May 2010 08:54 "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message news:4bf3d874$0$11867$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:E-adnfUKNKFSUm_WnZ2dnUVZ8tKdnZ2d(a)bt.com... >> >> >> "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message >> news:4bf2a6da$0$5870$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >>> "Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:85fn1qFgk9U12(a)mid.individual.net... >>>> boltar2003(a)boltar.world gurgled happily, sounding much like they were >>>> saying: >>>> >>>>>>> Though if they had diesel engines instead of petrol they'd be a lot >>>>>>> more efficient than they are at the moment. >>>> >>>>>>You seem to be forgetting the primary national markets of the current >>>>>>hybrids. And, of course, the "Is it or isn't it" over diesel vs petrol >>>>>>emissions. >>>> >>>>> Yes I know the yanks hate diesels and I can understand why. But going >>>>> purely by CO2 emmissions and mpg diesel beats petrol every time >>>> >>>> is as bloody silly and short-sighted as most such vague >>>> generalisations. >>> >>> Well if his statement is wrong, then perhaps you could explain exactly >>> how petrol is more efficient than diesel? >> Firstly, it will be necessary to define what is meant by "efficient". > > This was already defined - MPG, or miles per gallon. How far the vehicle > can be driven on 1 gallon of fuel. For some people that's far too narrow, hence my comment.
From: Adrian on 19 May 2010 09:00 boltar2003(a)boltar.world gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>It didn't. Clearly, my reply has terminally confused you, since you >>seem to have totally the wrong end of the stick. > No, I was simply talking about mpg which I don't think is a "vague" > measure of efficiency. Lean-burn. Ricardo. Discuss. >>> is utter rubbish. Have you never heard of chemistry? Clue - only just >>> over 50% of oil is used for fuel products. >>Correct. The rest is used for lubrication, for... And why? Because the >>different fractions aren't interchangable. > Er, no. Most of the rest is used in the chemicals industry and if you'd > bothered to read the link I supplied it would have explained to you how > a lot of the fractions are interchangable as fuels thanks to the > cracking process. Thank you for agreeing with me. Slowly, for your benefit... - "for..." implies "and for a whole stack of other things, including plastics and other production, and a shitload of stuff I can't be arsed to list, for danger of sounding like Clement Freud on JaM." - "a lot of" does not imply "all" - and you may wish to consider the differences between petrol and diesel, and which products bear strong similarities to either. > I assume you did at least do a couple of years of chemistry at school > since this is pretty basic stuff? Well, my O-level was a while back, but...
From: boltar2003 on 19 May 2010 10:25 On 19 May 2010 13:00:28 GMT Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> No, I was simply talking about mpg which I don't think is a "vague" >> measure of efficiency. > >Lean-burn. Ricardo. Discuss. A dead technology for cars. Discuss. B2003
From: Adrian on 19 May 2010 10:29
boltar2003(a)boltar.world gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>> No, I was simply talking about mpg which I don't think is a "vague" >>> measure of efficiency. >>Lean-burn. Ricardo. Discuss. > A dead technology for cars. Why? |