I was not specifically referring to any particular vehicle or brand but you
just provided your own source that proves MY point, thanks. HP at the
proper RPMs in relation to the torque is what is most important not HP
alone. The Siena needs to be run all the way up to 5600 RPMs to develop
its 215 HP far over its maximum torque of 222 FP at 3600 RPMs The Freestar
develops its HP at well over 1000 RPMs lower at only 4250, much closer to
its maximum torque of 263 FP at a RPM higher than the Sennia. Much better
attuned at using the torque available in each example you cited, and the
reason Toyotas are generally underpowered compared to its competitors
vehicles whether you agree or not is immaterial. There are nay number of
other domestic vehicles you could research and you will find the same high
HP to tongue disparage

mike hunt


"dh" <dh@stargate.com> wrote in message
news:dku735$7lo$1@domitilla.aioe.org...
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> newsZCcnRFQXs6Axe_eUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>> Not necessarily. It would depend at what RPMs each engine produced its
>> maximum torque. It is after all tongue, not HP, that get the vehicle
> going
>> from a stop and what keeps it going, at speed, up a long grade. The
>> Pruis
>> uses the electric motor when staring and adds it on grades because
> electric
>> motors develop their greatest amount of tongue at start up. That is why
>> most Toyota are under powered, compared to many of its competitors
>> vehicles.
>
> They're not underpowered. You might try surprising us with facts for a
> change. But I doubt you will.
>
> I drove through CO, UT, AZ and NM last spring in my '01 Sienna. 5
> passengers and camping equipment and it never dowhshifted on all the
> freeways through the mountains (Eisenhower tunnel and Raton pass
> included).
> Next time, I'll keep track of the Aerosaurs, Windstoppers and Freeloaders
> I
> breeze by as they're sucking wind in the Rockies.
>
>> Toyota, like many import brand engines are designed to
>> produce their HP at higher RPMs than the engines in domestic brands, that
> is
>> why they run out of tongue rather quickly at speed.
>
> Actually, you'll find that the 2005 Sienna 3.3L-V6 develops its greatest
> torque at a lower RPM than the Freestar's 3.9L-V6 does.* It just provides
> more maximum HP at higher revs because the torque doesn't fall off as fast
> at higher RPMs with the Toyota engine as it does with the Ford. I suppose
> the Toyota engine is designed more carefully and machined to closer
> tolerances, so it's not shaking itself to pieces at >5000rpm.
>
>> The reason is domestics
>> sell mostly automatic tyrannies in the majority of their vehicles that
>> are
>> equipped with tongue converters. On the other hand Japanese brands which
>> use the same engines in cars sold in other countries that have a much
> larger
>> percentage of their vehicle equipped with manual tyrannies. With a
>> manual
>> tranny the gear selector can be used to stay on the tongue curve to climb
>> grades, particularly long grades. Most drivers of automatics are want to
>> run their cars in the lower gears to stay on the tongue curve. Follow a
>> Corolla equipped with a manual tranny up a long grade and it will quickly
>> drop off the prevailing speed, unless the drive reverts to lower gears.
>> Follow one with an automatic and you will see it runs out of gears trying
> to
>> maintain speed, and the speed quickly drops off, because few drivers are
>> willing to run their engines at the much higher RPMs in lower gears
>> needed
>> to maintain the prevailing speed.
>>
>> mike hunt
>
> * - Source: Edmunds.com.
> http://www.edmunds.com/new/2006/toyo...94/specs.html?
> tid=edmunds.n.researchlanding.leftsidenav..8.Toyot a*
> http://www.edmunds.com/new/2006/ford...82/specs.html?
> tid=edmunds.n.researchlanding.leftsidenav..8.Ford*
>
> Oh, look, the Toyota develops more power than the bigger Freestar engine,
> too:
> http://www.edmunds.com/new/2006/ford...82/specs.html?
> tid=edmunds.n.researchlanding.leftsidenav..8.Ford*
>
> What else did Edmunds have to say about the Freestar?
> http://www.edmunds.com/new/2006/ford...tar/100542582/
> researchlanding.html
>
> "Unrefined powertrains with less horsepower and worse fuel economy than
> those of competing minivans, low-grade interior materials, hard-to-remove
> second-row seats..."
>
> By the numbers...
> Vehicle Curb Weight Power lb/hp MPG
> Sienna 4140lbs 215 19.3 Decent
> Freestar 4275lb 201 21.2 Sucky
>
>
>

 

Mike Hunter wrote:
> Not necessarily. It would depend at what RPMs each engine produced its
> maximum torque. It is after all tongue, not HP, that get the vehicle going
> from a stop and what keeps it going, at speed, up a long grade. The Pruis
> uses the electric motor when staring and adds it on grades because electric
> motors develop their greatest amount of tongue at start up. That is why
> most Toyota are under powered, compared to many of its competitors
> vehicles. . Toyota, like many import brand engines are designed to
> produce their HP at higher RPMs than the engines in domestic brands, that is
> why they run out of tongue rather quickly at speed.. The reason is domestics
> sell mostly automatic tyrannies in the majority of their vehicles that are
> equipped with tongue converters. On the other hand Japanese brands which
> use the same engines in cars sold in other countries that have a much larger
> percentage of their vehicle equipped with manual tyrannies. With a manual
> tranny the gear selector can be used to stay on the tongue curve to climb
> grades, particularly long grades.

<snip>

Power is the ability to accomplish work from a physics point of view and
it is indeed power which is required to overcome wind resistance, move a
certain distance and/or increase potential energy (climb a hill).

There is great misunderstanding about the relationship between torque
and power. In modern times the distinctions between manual and
automatic transmissions are becoming moot in this regard as today's
automatic transmissions often have five or six forward gears, which
gives them even more flexibility for optimizing the relationship between
engine speed (RPMs) and work being done than ever before. I don't think
that you actually understand the function of a torque converter
either. It is essentially and infinitely variable transmission which
goes between the engine and the main transmission and provides for a
range of ratios between the two. Modern ones also include an
electrically activated lockiing clutch to disable the converter under
cruise conditions and thus get rid of the high amount of power loss in
the little buggers.

In modern times the differences between "import" and "domestic" motor
design points is becomming smaller all the time. Cadillac's Northstar
has far more in common with a Lexus V-6 than it does with a traditional
1960s style GM motor. The current GM Ecotec 4 cyclinder motor is very
similar to similar size Japanese and European designs. In fact, GM puts
a turbo version of it in the Saabs.

Your Japanese/Domestic comparisons are off the mark and meaningless. I
will gladly take on any V-6 equipped modern Chevrolet or Ford at the
local drag strip or road racing course with my V-6 Honda Accord. GM is
only now starting to implement variable valve timing used to flatten the
torque curve as Honda has been doing for years.

John

 

notbob wrote:

> Hydrogen can be pressurized and stored just like propane. It is no
> more dangerous than gasoline. In fact, in some ways it's safer. After
> gasoline's initial explosion, the liquid gas remains and burns
> furiously. Once hydrogen explodes, that's it. It's all gone. Fuel
> cells are unnecessary. Hydrogen will burn in reciprocating combustion
> engines just like other flammable gas (natural, propane). All this
> was known 30 years ago. The boogie-man scare tactics and
> disinformation are all oil industry bullshit.
>

Just because your dream system hasn't happened is not evidence that the
boogie man exists or that he is THE OIL INDUSTRY. Saps like you fell
for the fish carburator nonsense as well.

John

 

notbob wrote:

> Wind is free. So is sunlight. Granted, at this stage these
> technologies are still in their infancy, but there's a reason for
> that. Hard to promote/fund a technology the developers can't
> monopolize for their own gain.
>

Wind turbines are not free. Dead birds from turbines are a major
issue. Solar cells are still costly to manufacture.

I'm all for development of alternative energy sources, but the problems
are mostly technical and economic, not a matter of conspiracies.

Why don't you work on some of the real challenges instead of filling
your mind with nonsense?

John

 

Mike Hunter wrote:
> Certainly there are any number of alternate energy sources available
> throughout the world. The problem has ALWAYS been, and continues to be,
> that NONE of them in particular or even several of them in total, is
> available in sufficient supply at a competitive cost to replace gasoline and
> certainly not to replace the other major uses for crude oil. Except for the
> one that is currently being used, more and more throughout the world as a
> major source of energy with the notable exception of the US, but suggest
> using more of THAT energy source drives the environuts well........nuts.
> That clean, safe, low cost, unlimited and yes even renewable energy source
> is nuclear power. Using nuclear power to produce electricity in countries
> like Japan, China, India and several countries in Europe, is what has been
> holding down an even greater increase in demand for other less
> environmentally friendly fuels.
>
> mike hunt
>


I hate to say it, but Mike has this one pretty much right .

The only big remaining problem with Nuclear energy is the waste disposal
issue. Despite years of effort and billions of dollars spent, that one
isn't handled yet. Now if I were a conspiracy theory nut then I would
blame the vast Environmental Lobby Industry, which is indeed now a big
business in it's own right with plenty of highly paid full time
employees. In a way, Environmental Lobbying is also a religious
movement with strongly held beliefs, loyal contributor/member/believers
and a strong hatred/distrust for Others!

John

 

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:efSdnWoLjJ4kJO7eUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> I was not specifically referring to any particular vehicle or brand but
you
> just provided your own source that proves MY point, thanks. HP at the
> proper RPMs in relation to the torque is what is most important not HP
> alone. The Siena needs to be run all the way up to 5600 RPMs to develop
> its 215 HP far over its maximum torque of 222 FP at 3600 RPMs

So? It still develops more power than the Freestar and the torque to do it
comes on at lower RPMs. Ford would love to declare a higher HP number for
the Freestar, no matter what the RPM, but their crappy engine's power output
falls off dramatically above 4600RPM as it starts to shake itself apart.

> The Freestar
> develops its HP at well over 1000 RPMs lower at only 4250, much closer to
> its maximum torque of 263 FP at a RPM higher than the Sennia.

So the Toyota downshifts if necessary. Except that I haven't noticed that
mine ever downshifts on the freeway, unless I really want to accelerate.
It's not underpowered.

If the Ford's maximum HP and maximum torque are, as you point out, close
together, that describes an engine with a narrow power band - one that would
require more frequent shifting.

> Much better
> attuned at using the torque available in each example you cited, and the
> reason Toyotas are generally underpowered compared to its competitors
> vehicles whether you agree or not is immaterial. There are nay number of
> other domestic vehicles you could research and you will find the same high
> HP to tongue disparage
>

So you say, but you never bring out any facts and figures to support your
allegations. Fact is, you're a blowhard.

> mike hunt
>

Don't think the Freestar's engine is junk? Don't take my word for it.
Check with Edmunds:
http://www.edmunds.com/new/2005/ford...chlanding.html
"Unrefined powertrains with less horsepower and worse fuel mileage than most
competitors..."

 

John Horner wrote:
> Mike Hunter wrote:
>
>> Certainly there are any number of alternate energy sources available
>> throughout the world. The problem has ALWAYS been, and continues to
>> be, that NONE of them in particular or even several of them in total,
>> is available in sufficient supply at a competitive cost to replace
>> gasoline and certainly not to replace the other major uses for crude
>> oil. Except for the one that is currently being used, more and more
>> throughout the world as a major source of energy with the notable
>> exception of the US, but suggest using more of THAT energy source
>> drives the environuts well........nuts. That clean, safe, low cost,
>> unlimited and yes even renewable energy source is nuclear power.
>> Using nuclear power to produce electricity in countries like Japan,
>> China, India and several countries in Europe, is what has been holding
>> down an even greater increase in demand for other less environmentally
>> friendly fuels.
>>
>> mike hunt
>>
>
>
> I hate to say it, but Mike has this one pretty much right .
>
> The only big remaining problem with Nuclear energy is the waste disposal
> issue. Despite years of effort and billions of dollars spent, that one
> isn't handled yet.

well, /we/ haven't handled it yet. all we do is stick used rods into
tanks and leave them there. we make no attempt to reprocess, and
frankly, all the money we're spending on storage is a /RIDICULOUS/ waste
if we have no intention of reprocessing!

others reprocess very successfully; they recover the useful stuff and
transform the non-useful stuff into a form that is /much/ safer for long
term storage. again, simply storing unprocessed unmaterial is the worst
possible thing to do, but we're seemingly too paralysed by mass fear and
mass ignorance and gross misinformation to actually do anything
intelligent!!!

> Now if I were a conspiracy theory nut then I would
> blame the vast Environmental Lobby Industry, which is indeed now a big
> business in it's own right with plenty of highly paid full time
> employees. In a way, Environmental Lobbying is also a religious
> movement with strongly held beliefs, loyal contributor/member/believers
> and a strong hatred/distrust for Others!
>
> John

 

notbob wrote:
> On 2005-11-10, st-bum <kennykabuki@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>A gallon of gas has about 36 kwh of heat energy. Generating that much
>>heat energy from wind would cost about $2.00 at a minimum.
>
>
> Wind is free. So is sunlight. Granted, at this stage these
> technologies are still in their infancy,

they're not in their infancy - the energy is just very "un-dense" and
that makes it apita to use.

> but there's a reason for
> that. Hard to promote/fund a technology the developers can't
> monopolize for their own gain.
>
> This also for storage. Alloys and synthetics have replaced steel in
> storage containers. Hydrogen tanker trucks ply our freeways daily
> with no cavalcade of security/safety vehicles.

excuse me - what pressures do you think it's transported at? and how
does that compare with the pressure necessary to store sufficient to run
a car 300 miles at a reasonable volume? do the math.

> It's all bunk. So
> what if efficiency is less? Early gas engines were inefficient, too.
> It's the pollution that's important.
>
> Four decades ago a four function calculator cost $600. Today they're
> in a kid's wristwatch you get free in a box of breakfast cereal. This
> kind of technological advancement could have been applied to hydrogen
> technology and we'd all be driving hydrogen cars today.

there's several problems with hydrogen:

1. it typically takes more enery to produce than you get back out - not
really a good idea is you want to quote green credentials as a reason
for use.

2. it's extremely dangerous. that may not bother you, but it bothers me.

3. it's extremely hard to use. have you ever heard of diffusion? how
about hydrogen cracking?

no, hydrogen is great political propaganda, but it ain't no practical
solution.

> But, there's
> no incentive in exploring it and it has advanced little. You are
> throwing up the same arguments the naysayers did 30 years ago. This
> doesn't mean these problems are not solvable, it means no one has done
> a damn thing in 30 years.
>
> nb

 

"John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:BcRcf.19270$6M6.7819@trnddc04...
> Mike Hunter wrote:
> > Certainly there are any number of alternate energy sources available
> > throughout the world. The problem has ALWAYS been, and continues to be,
> > that NONE of them in particular or even several of them in total, is
> > available in sufficient supply at a competitive cost to replace gasoline
and
> > certainly not to replace the other major uses for crude oil. Except for
the
> > one that is currently being used, more and more throughout the world as
a
> > major source of energy with the notable exception of the US, but
suggest
> > using more of THAT energy source drives the environuts well........nuts.
> > That clean, safe, low cost, unlimited and yes even renewable energy
source
> > is nuclear power. Using nuclear power to produce electricity in
countries
> > like Japan, China, India and several countries in Europe, is what has
been
> > holding down an even greater increase in demand for other less
> > environmentally friendly fuels.
> >
> > mike hunt
> >
> I hate to say it, but Mike has this one pretty much right .
>

A broken clock is right twice a day - Mike isn't right even that regularly.

> The only big remaining problem with Nuclear energy is the waste disposal
> issue. Despite years of effort and billions of dollars spent, that one
> isn't handled yet.

And it's hardly a trivial problem. But it does come down to relative risk.
As
we recognize the risks inherent in burning fossil fuel, the nuclear option
looks more attractive even to some envrionmentalists. And some - I'm one -
have favored it for many years. The reason it's not more popular than it
is: it's going to be brought to you by the same people that ran Enron and
similar operations. We should trust them? I'd be much happier if you gave
the business over to the US Navy. They have an impressive safety record
that hasn't been compromised by greed or politics.

> Now if I were a conspiracy theory nut then I would
> blame the vast Environmental Lobby Industry, which is indeed now a big
> business in it's own right with plenty of highly paid full time
> employees. In a way, Environmental Lobbying is also a religious
> movement with strongly held beliefs, loyal contributor/member/believers
> and a strong hatred/distrust for Others!
>
> John

The "Environmental Lobby" hasn't a tenth the cash available to the "Oil/Gas
Lobby." The only reason the Enviros have as much support and visibility as
they do is that the science is generally on their side. Oily cash can only
go so far. Contrary to what most people believe, there's a fair amount of
consensus among climatologists and atmospheric scientists that rising
levels of CO2 are attributed to man's activities (deforestation and fossil
fuel use) and that this will lead to SOME change.

We're gambling for very high stakes. Covering our bets, by slowing the
rates of human-induced change would make sense to me. The fossil fuel
industries won't give up their short-term profits, so they put up cash to
fight the science.

It's a matter of priorities. I certainly don't want people freezing to
death to save a trivial amount of oil but our priorities for the last 20
years have been to build bigger cars and houses, not to find ways to reduce,
reuse and recycle. That attitude is going to bite us in the ***.

And there's an economic reason to be out in front on environmental issues -
the country that builds the next generation of solar cells (or other energy
source) will have an economic advantage. We can be that country but it
takes investment to do it. US Corporations would rather puff up executive
salaries than hire engineers and chemists. A recent post said that India's
graduating 350,000 engineers/year to our 70,000. I believe it. And their
science is the same as ours, they can make the same advances that we can but
they're more likely to do it because they're able to put more people on it.
Why is
Toyota on its third generation of hybrid? Because it's a short-term money
maker? Hardly, they think they can own the hybrid market further down the
road. They're going for strategic advantage.

Don't limt yourself to thinking about the energy industry, either. Where
was the last big story on advances in cloning? South Korea. By the way,
they didn't achieve that by insisting Intelligent Design be taught in high
school.

Come to think of it, there's a second economic reason to be out in front on
environmental issues - reducing oil imports would reduce our balance of
trade problem. We're $66 billion in the hole this month and a projected
$700 billion for the year. To put that in perspective, that's like the
mortgage on 3 million reaonably-priced houses. Except we're probably going
to mortgage another 3 million houses next year and it's trending worse. If
we start exporting whatever alternative energy products we develop, that
will also help fix the balance of trade problem.

 

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 19:41:42 -0800, jim beam <nospam@example.net>
wrote:

>John Horner wrote:
>> Mike Hunter wrote:
>>
>>> Certainly there are any number of alternate energy sources available
>>> throughout the world. The problem has ALWAYS been, and continues to
>>> be, that NONE of them in particular or even several of them in total,
>>> is available in sufficient supply at a competitive cost to replace
>>> gasoline and certainly not to replace the other major uses for crude
>>> oil. Except for the one that is currently being used, more and more
>>> throughout the world as a major source of energy with the notable
>>> exception of the US, but suggest using more of THAT energy source
>>> drives the environuts well........nuts. That clean, safe, low cost,
>>> unlimited and yes even renewable energy source is nuclear power.
>>> Using nuclear power to produce electricity in countries like Japan,
>>> China, India and several countries in Europe, is what has been holding
>>> down an even greater increase in demand for other less environmentally
>>> friendly fuels.
>>>
>>> mike hunt
>>>
>>
>>
>> I hate to say it, but Mike has this one pretty much right .
>>
>> The only big remaining problem with Nuclear energy is the waste disposal
>> issue. Despite years of effort and billions of dollars spent, that one
>> isn't handled yet.
>
>well, /we/ haven't handled it yet. all we do is stick used rods into
>tanks and leave them there. we make no attempt to reprocess, and
>frankly, all the money we're spending on storage is a /RIDICULOUS/ waste
>if we have no intention of reprocessing!
>
>others reprocess very successfully; they recover the useful stuff and
>transform the non-useful stuff into a form that is /much/ safer for long
>term storage. again, simply storing unprocessed unmaterial is the worst
>possible thing to do, but we're seemingly too paralysed by mass fear and
>mass ignorance and gross misinformation to actually do anything
>intelligent!!!

For once I am in agreement with Jim. Reprocessing is not just safe,
its FUN!!!! :-) (Saying that, i used to work at the Sellafield nuclear
reprocessing facility).

There have been some more intruiging systems discussed, including the
'proton transmutation accelerator' which is basicaly bombarding the
waste with a proton gun, to try and do what the alchemists couldn't.
never got past planning stages, abandoned last year iirc.



>
>> Now if I were a conspiracy theory nut then I would
>> blame the vast Environmental Lobby Industry, which is indeed now a big
>> business in it's own right with plenty of highly paid full time
>> employees. In a way, Environmental Lobbying is also a religious
>> movement with strongly held beliefs, loyal contributor/member/believers
>> and a strong hatred/distrust for Others!
>>
>> John

 

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 23:58:50 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>notbob wrote:
>
>> Wind is free. So is sunlight. Granted, at this stage these
>> technologies are still in their infancy, but there's a reason for
>> that. Hard to promote/fund a technology the developers can't
>> monopolize for their own gain.
>>
>
>Wind turbines are not free. Dead birds from turbines are a major
>issue. Solar cells are still costly to manufacture.

If I remmeber correctly, It takes more energy to produce a
conventional solar cell, than the cell will produce in its lifetime.
Its only reason is for portability and utility (use ambient light,
rather than the added weight of a batery)

>
>I'm all for development of alternative energy sources, but the problems
>are mostly technical and economic, not a matter of conspiracies.
>
>Why don't you work on some of the real challenges instead of filling
>your mind with nonsense?
>
>John

 

The fact is you are the blowhard. You supplied the facts yourself but you
still don't understand the relative difference between HP and the ideal
application of tongue to HP. I'll waste no more time trying to enlighten you
on the subject.. Ford could easily develop more HP for that engine by
winding it up if they chose to, but the torgue available at the normal
driving rage of 2,000 RPMs makes for a better performing engine. If you are
satisfied with the power your vehicle has that is your opinion and your
business. The fact is those in the industry knows otherwise, Toyotas are
generally underpowered vis a
v their domestic comparators, whether you happen to agree or not. is
immaterial.


mike hunt


"dh" <dh@stargate.com> wrote in message
news:dl0rrn$toa$1@domitilla.aioe.org...
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:efSdnWoLjJ4kJO7eUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>> I was not specifically referring to any particular vehicle or brand but
> you
>> just provided your own source that proves MY point, thanks. HP at the
>> proper RPMs in relation to the torque is what is most important not HP
>> alone. The Siena needs to be run all the way up to 5600 RPMs to develop
>> its 215 HP far over its maximum torque of 222 FP at 3600 RPMs
>
> So? It still develops more power than the Freestar and the torque to do
> it
> comes on at lower RPMs. Ford would love to declare a higher HP number for
> the Freestar, no matter what the RPM, but their crappy engine's power
> output
> falls off dramatically above 4600RPM as it starts to shake itself apart.
>
>> The Freestar
>> develops its HP at well over 1000 RPMs lower at only 4250, much closer to
>> its maximum torque of 263 FP at a RPM higher than the Sennia.
>
> So the Toyota downshifts if necessary. Except that I haven't noticed that
> mine ever downshifts on the freeway, unless I really want to accelerate.
> It's not underpowered.
>
> If the Ford's maximum HP and maximum torque are, as you point out, close
> together, that describes an engine with a narrow power band - one that
> would
> require more frequent shifting.
>
>> Much better
>> attuned at using the torque available in each example you cited, and the
>> reason Toyotas are generally underpowered compared to its competitors
>> vehicles whether you agree or not is immaterial. There are nay number of
>> other domestic vehicles you could research and you will find the same
>> high
>> HP to tongue disparage
>>
>
> So you say, but you never bring out any facts and figures to support your
> allegations. Fact is, you're a blowhard.
>
>> mike hunt
>>
>
> Don't think the Freestar's engine is junk? Don't take my word for it.
> Check with Edmunds:
> http://www.edmunds.com/new/2005/ford...chlanding.html
> "Unrefined powertrains with less horsepower and worse fuel mileage than
> most
> competitors..."
>
>

 

Nuclear waste disposal is NOT a scientific problem throughout the world, it
is only a political problem in the US. Environuts are opposed to the dispose
of it in the ground from which it came, as they do in other counties. We
now store it less safely under six feet of water at the sites.

mike hunt


"John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:BcRcf.19270$6M6.7819@trnddc04...
> Mike Hunter wrote:
>> Certainly there are any number of alternate energy sources available
>> throughout the world. The problem has ALWAYS been, and continues to be,
>> that NONE of them in particular or even several of them in total, is
>> available in sufficient supply at a competitive cost to replace gasoline
>> and certainly not to replace the other major uses for crude oil. Except
>> for the one that is currently being used, more and more throughout the
>> world as a major source of energy with the notable exception of the US,
>> but suggest using more of THAT energy source drives the environuts
>> well........nuts. That clean, safe, low cost, unlimited and yes even
>> renewable energy source is nuclear power. Using nuclear power to produce
>> electricity in countries like Japan, China, India and several countries
>> in Europe, is what has been holding down an even greater increase in
>> demand for other less environmentally friendly fuels.
>>
>> mike hunt
>>
>
>
> I hate to say it, but Mike has this one pretty much right .
>
> The only big remaining problem with Nuclear energy is the waste disposal
> issue. Despite years of effort and billions of dollars spent, that one
> isn't handled yet. Now if I were a conspiracy theory nut then I would
> blame the vast Environmental Lobby Industry, which is indeed now a big
> business in it's own right with plenty of highly paid full time employees.
> In a way, Environmental Lobbying is also a religious movement with
> strongly held beliefs, loyal contributor/member/believers and a strong
> hatred/distrust for Others!
>
> John

 

You are entitled to you own opinion but the proof is in the pudding, as they
say. You can prove it too yourself if you wish. Drive in hilly or
mountainous parts of the county and notice which vehicles fall behind others
when you come to a grade. ;(

mike hunt


"John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:W3Rcf.19264$6M6.18583@trnddc04...
> Mike Hunter wrote:
>> Not necessarily. It would depend at what RPMs each engine produced its
>> maximum torque. It is after all tongue, not HP, that get the vehicle
>> going from a stop and what keeps it going, at speed, up a long grade.
>> The Pruis uses the electric motor when staring and adds it on grades
>> because electric motors develop their greatest amount of tongue at start
>> up. That is why most Toyota are under powered, compared to many of its
>> competitors vehicles. . Toyota, like many import brand engines are
>> designed to produce their HP at higher RPMs than the engines in domestic
>> brands, that is why they run out of tongue rather quickly at speed.. The
>> reason is domestics sell mostly automatic tyrannies in the majority of
>> their vehicles that are equipped with tongue converters. On the other
>> hand Japanese brands which use the same engines in cars sold in other
>> countries that have a much larger percentage of their vehicle equipped
>> with manual tyrannies. With a manual tranny the gear selector can be
>> used to stay on the tongue curve to climb grades, particularly long
>> grades.
>
> <snip>
>
> Power is the ability to accomplish work from a physics point of view and
> it is indeed power which is required to overcome wind resistance, move a
> certain distance and/or increase potential energy (climb a hill).
>
> There is great misunderstanding about the relationship between torque and
> power. In modern times the distinctions between manual and automatic
> transmissions are becoming moot in this regard as today's automatic
> transmissions often have five or six forward gears, which gives them even
> more flexibility for optimizing the relationship between engine speed
> (RPMs) and work being done than ever before. I don't think that you
> actually understand the function of a torque converter either. It is
> essentially and infinitely variable transmission which goes between the
> engine and the main transmission and provides for a range of ratios
> between the two. Modern ones also include an electrically activated
> lockiing clutch to disable the converter under cruise conditions and thus
> get rid of the high amount of power loss in the little buggers.
>
> In modern times the differences between "import" and "domestic" motor
> design points is becomming smaller all the time. Cadillac's Northstar has
> far more in common with a Lexus V-6 than it does with a traditional 1960s
> style GM motor. The current GM Ecotec 4 cyclinder motor is very similar
> to similar size Japanese and European designs. In fact, GM puts a turbo
> version of it in the Saabs.
>
> Your Japanese/Domestic comparisons are off the mark and meaningless. I
> will gladly take on any V-6 equipped modern Chevrolet or Ford at the local
> drag strip or road racing course with my V-6 Honda Accord. GM is only now
> starting to implement variable valve timing used to flatten the torque
> curve as Honda has been doing for years.
>
> John

 

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 23:58:50 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>notbob wrote:

>> Wind is free. So is sunlight. Granted, at this stage these
>> technologies are still in their infancy, but there's a reason for
>> that. Hard to promote/fund a technology the developers can't
>> monopolize for their own gain.
>
>Wind turbines are not free. Dead birds from turbines are a major
>issue. Solar cells are still costly to manufacture.

Excuse me, dead birds? Cites, please. (IOW, Prove It.)

I've gone by the Tehachapi wind farms several times, and there are a
few local turbines in Palmdale, and there weren't workers out there
sweeping up vast piles of dead birds at the base of the turbines -
matter of fact, I've never seen a single one. If this is such a
"Major Issue", where are they?

--<< Bruce >>--

--
Bruce L. Bergman, Woodland Hills (Los Angeles) CA - Desktop
Electrician for Westend Electric - CA726700
5737 Kanan Rd. #359, Agoura CA 91301 (818) 889-9545
Spamtrapped address: Remove the python and the invalid, and use a net.