|
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Adding acetone to your gas to get better milage
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randy Stankey
Film God
Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 09-03-2005 10:11 AM
quote:
Besides, many people need SUVs for their biz and others to carry kids around. Quit you whining and get enlightened!
Already stipulated in previous post.
quote:
Most SUV's are very efficient. JFC!
Unless you have some very counterintuitive information, I wonder how it can be said that a vehicle which gets 1/2 the mileage out of a gallon of fuel and which has 1/3 the fuel efficiency of other cars is "very efficient".
quote: Phil Hill
I think that the truckers, mass transportation, and business people should be given a lower rate because they are necessary for our economy...
Abs-O-FREAKIN'-lutely!!
I'll do you one better! Each privately owned vehicle should be subject to a yearly excise tax inversely proportional to its fuel economy. The proceeds of which go to research and development of more fuel efficient vehicles and/or to road maintenance.
THAT would keep unnecessary traffic off the roads AND bring down fuel consumption which would, in turn, bring down fuel prices. That would further relieve the burden on commercial transportation. THAT would have the net effect of removing a huge burden on the ENTIRE economy.
They tried a smaller version of this back in the '70s but the auto makers bitched and got the rules changed. Only in the last couple of weeks has the government tried to put those standards back in place... And the auto makers are STILL bitching!
But I STILL maintain that, no matter WHAT kind of vehicle you think you have to drive, you should keep the engine and power train tuned up and in tip-top condition. I do it with my car and I'm getting almost 1% better efficiency and 10% better fuel mileage out of it than the specs say it's supposed to. THAT uses 20% LESS crude oil than this already (reasonably) fuel efficient car is designed to use.
It's one thing that virtually everybody who reads this board is capable of doing themselves by taking a trip to the auto parts store and spending $50 or less. It's one thing that virtually everybody in the country is capable of doing by taking their car to a mehanic and paying $100 or less.
It's the one thing that people avoid doing but instead would rather bitch about how expensive fuel is than spend time thinking up exotic ways to weasel out of the position they have gotten themselves into. If you don't like it, send your sub-10 MPG gas guzzler to the scrap heap and buy a better car!
When the day comes when these people are sitting by the side with empty gas tanks and MY car cruises by I'll be sure to wave to them... With one finger! ![[fu]](graemlins/fu.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aaron Mehocic
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 804
From: New Castle, PA, USA
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 09-03-2005 04:13 PM
quote: Phil Hill
Oh yes, and BTW: Let's fuckup our coastlines with MORE crap by putting windmills there! How fucking stupit! The real answer to the energy problem is nuclear power plants and renewable energy sources..
Nuclear power plant construction projects begin in the BILLIONS, with a B. Moreover, wind power is a renewable resource according to to those in the energy business. But since I like you Phil, I'll wont allow those two slip ups to affect your overall grade my class. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote: Randy Stankey
THAT would keep unnecessary traffic off the roads AND bring down fuel consumption which would, in turn, bring down fuel prices. That would further relieve the burden on commercial transportation. THAT would have the net effect of removing a huge burden on the ENTIRE economy.
The truth is nothing will keep unnecessary traffic off the roads. The pundits told us that when gas got to $1.75 people would think twice before going out. Then they told us the same thing at $2.00, $2.50, and now - even at $3.19 - there seems to be no let up in peoples' driving habits. Any tax will be chalked up as just another expense in taking the kids to school, going to the mall, or traveling hundreds of miles from home to visit an old college room mate. My Proof? For starters AAA's report on Labor Day 2005 traffic projections. Numerous other Federal studies show increases like this as well.
And one more point: Who will benefit from the tax? It won't be the end users. If the Feds collect this tax, state governments will feel they are not getting their fair share of revenue from their citizens. States with major refineries would probably be the first to pass and attach their own percentage bills to the over all cost per gallon while claiming its needed to keep the refinery humming or improve the environment (both of which WILL BE BULL SHIT). What might start out as $30.00 or $40.00 tax on an efficient vehicle might become a total cost of $90.00 or $100.00 after the greedy politicos at the state level are finished. Lastly how do you define R & D. I'm at work right now on an industry related website, but not necessarily debating industry related points. Am I still conducting research or am I doing my own thing and wasting company dollars? Its a gray area.
On paper your tax plan looks great, but unfortunately even communism looks great on paper. It just wont work.
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Pytlak
Film God
Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 09-08-2005 12:45 PM
[/QUOTE] quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
There is no definative proof that CFC's are a major cause of the global warming
CFC (Chlorofluorocarbon) emissions are implicated in destroying upper atmospheric ozone, not global warming:
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/
http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/index.html
quote:
The Science of Ozone Depletion
Ozone depletion is the result of a complex set of circumstances and chemistry. This page has links to articles that give overviews or broad information, shorter pieces that focus on specific aspects of ozone depletion, images and animations of ozone levels and ozone depletion, and international organizations that issue regular updates.
http://www.epa.gov/Ozone/defns.html#ods
[QUOTE] Ozone-Depleting Substance(s) (ODS): a compound that contributes to stratospheric ozone depletion
ODS include CFCs, HCFCs, halons, methyl bromide, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform. ODS are generally very stable in the troposphere and only degrade under intense ultraviolet light in the stratosphere. When they break down, they release chlorine or bromine atoms, which then deplete ozone. A detailed list of class I and class II substances with their ODPs, GWPs, and CAS numbers are available.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Monte L Fullmer
Film God
Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004
|
posted 10-12-2005 04:15 AM
(Sorry to bring this old topic up, but I was telling a friend of mine about this acetone topic.)
Then I saw Randy's comment below that I must add to this due to what I read about in a neigbouring state the other day:
quote:
But, what I FAIL to understand is people who think they can drive huge 4-wheelers around town as daily transportation. And, DON'T give me that "safety" arguement! You KNOW that's a batch of crap!
A SUV (big ol' Ford Excursion POS) ran a stop sign and broadsided a regular mid-size car square in the driver's door. Driver of the car was immediately killed due to the higher bumper of the SUV literally folded the driver in half being that the SUV's bumper hit the soft part of the car-which is the doors.
Driver of the FORD got out of the SUV, unscathed - a woman claimed that wasn't paying attention to her driving since she was blabbing on the cel at the time and fighting with her kids in the back seat, just couldn't fathom on what she had done.
Kids were okey in their seatbelts in as well as the woman since the airbag popped to stop her from going into the windshield.
She then made the classic comment on why a huge vehicle - "I feel safe in such a vehicle." - but did she know that she was driving a huge steel battering ram-almost 3 tons of iron when not in motion, then going 55mph with a full ladder steel frame, whereas cars are mainly unibody construction..?
She faces a charge of vehicular manslaughter now...
-monte
-Monte
[ 10-12-2005, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: Monte L Fullmer ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 10-12-2005 04:51 AM
In the short-term a combination of biofuel, LPG and hybrid vehicles are the way to go, both to combat global warming and to reduce our dependancy on a resource, most of which is either controlled by religious extremists or in politically unstable countries (e.g. Russia). All it would take is for Iran to get the hump over the nuclear business and turn the oil off, or for someone like Zhirinovsky to take power in Russia and do likewise, and we'd all be seriously screwed. We can't solve that problem overnight, but every extra field of biofuel we plant and every more fuel efficient car we build reduces their hold over us that little bit more.
Solar energy on an industrial scale, nuclear fusion and renewable hydrogen production remain the holy grails, but AFAIK they're all several decades away, being realistic about it.
Personally I've got no problem with wind turbines, but their output is unreliable (i.e. no wind = no power) and apparently you'd need to install tens of thousands of them just to match the output of a medium-sized coal fired or nuclear power station: and in Britain, at least, we just don't have the land to do that.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jim Ziegler
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 753
From: West Hollywood, CA
Registered: Jul 99
|
posted 10-12-2005 04:55 AM
quote: Randy Stankey
I'll do you one better! Each privately owned vehicle should be subject to a yearly excise tax inversely proportional to its fuel economy. The proceeds of which go to research and development of more fuel efficient vehicles and/or to road maintenance.
You know, every year we hear the same things out of various governments... We are rasing such and such a tax for such and such a cause. What happens? Well, the money from the new tax does go to the cause, but general funds that were going to that cause stop. Net result - new "car mileage tax" enriched the general fund and goes to funding some stupid pork project somewhere. Higher fuel costs will have a negative effect on the economy - adding more taxes onto that will only exacernbate the issue.
quote:
Ozone depletion is the result of a complex set of circumstances and chemistry. This page has links to articles that give overviews or broad information, shorter pieces that focus on specific aspects of ozone depletion, images and animations of ozone levels and ozone depletion, and international organizations that issue regular updates.
I have always wondered how CFC's - which are much heavier than air - make it in mass quantities to the ozone layer? I have hard from environmentalits that wids carry it up there, but that brings another question.. Since ozone is a big component of urban smog (and a regulated pollutant by the EPA), wouldn't those wids also carry the ground level ozone up too? How is it that the winds can carry the heavier CFC to the stratospere but not the ozone?
Something else I have always wondered... From what I recall from Chemisty, The ozone layer is created by UV radiation splitting O2 molecules into individual O atoms link up with other O2 molecules making O3 molecules (ozone). So, if we weaken the ozone which would allow more UV in, why would the increased UV not just end up creating more ozone? It seems to me that the antartic ozone hole that pops up in the fall is probably more the result of the near 6 months of darkness during the southern hemispheres winter and less the resulty of heavier than air chemicals that are/were used primarily in the northern hemisphere. I am not a scientist by any means, but onits face that appears to be a more likey senerio.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Randy Stankey
Film God
Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 10-12-2005 09:31 AM
quote: Monte L Fullmer
A SUV (big ol' Ford Excursion POS) ran a stop sign and broadsided a regular mid-size car square in the driver's door. Driver of the car was immediately killed due to the higher bumper of the SUV literally folded the driver in half being that the SUV's bumper hit the soft part of the car-which is the doors.
That is merely problem #1 with the SUV safety arguement.
In front or glancing side collisions the occupants of the larger vehicle WILL be safer but, as we have seen, the incidence of injury and death to the occupants of the OTHER cars that SUVs hit is GREATLY increased. As in Monte's example, the driver of the SUV could be liable for vehicular manslaughter if it can be shown that the driver was negligent. That negligence is MULTIPLIED because of the damage SUVs do to the things they hit.
In side collisions, SUVs are often no safer than other cars when you compensate for the size of the vehicle compared to the vehicle or object doing the colliding. Given enough force, an SUV will fold in half just as much as a Ford Escort. It just takes more force.
SUVs are also MUCH more likely to roll over in a (side) collision. In violent rollovers, SUVs are no safer than any other vehicle. The occupants get tossed around inside just the same way. Furthermore, SUVs are just a lot more likely to roll over when going around a sharp turn. Remember that Ford Explorer/Firestone tire recall? We had SUVs blowing tires and flipping over just going down the road! People seem to have conveniently short memories, sometimes!
Finally, the BIG arguement we get around here is that SUVs are better on slippery roads. That is FLAT OUT WRONG! SUVs have more mass and take more energy to get moving or stop. Tires are MORE likely to slip and spin on an icy surface. SUVs are MORE likely to slide off the road on an icy turn. Stopping an SUV on ice?! Forget it!
SUVs are better for going through deep snow, mud and sand. They are better at clearing obstacles. They are better for climbing hills. They are better for hauling and towing things. They are NOT better for driving on slippery roads unless those roads are impassible to other vehicles because of deep snow or obstructions.
I LIKE SUVs but not for daily driving. (The Lamborghine LM-2! It's like a Hummer but with STYLE!) They were meant for hauling and towing. People who use them for daily driving really need to think about what they are doing.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic