Page 69 of 84 FirstFirst ... 1959676869707179 ... LastLast
Results 2,041 to 2,070 of 2501

Thread: Read that again?

  1. #2041
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    20,108
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim View Post
    That's a fairly common way for locals to differentiate between sections of a through highway. Or a loop.
    Accepted, but that's not the case around here. If they do differentiate, they usually designate it as a "leg" or "stretch" named by the locale it runs through.

  2. #2042
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    29,167
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim View Post
    That's a fairly common way for locals to differentiate between sections of a through highway. Or a loop.

    Houston has I45N and I45S, I10E and I10W, US59N and US59S. We also have Loop 610N, S, E and W (often called the North Loop, etc). Same for the Beltway.

    We know which is which.
    Washington, DC, has a spur coming off its Beltway to the northwest connecting with I-70 at Frederick that used to be called I-70S while the portion of I-70 east of Frederick was called I-70N. Before I moved to the area they decided to rename the DC spur I-270 and just call the Frederick-Baltimore stretch part of I-70.
    Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

  3. #2043
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Sioux Falls, SD
    Posts
    7,915
    Quote Originally Posted by ToSeek View Post
    Washington, DC, has a spur coming off its Beltway to the northwest connecting with I-70 at Frederick that used to be called I-70S while the portion of I-70 east of Frederick was called I-70N. Before I moved to the area they decided to rename the DC spur I-270 and just call the Frederick-Baltimore stretch part of I-70.
    Interstate 35 splits into 35W and 35E as it goes through Minneapolis/St. Paul.

    Things like that are not what the originally linked article was talking about, though - there's no single path between 35W and 35E that it would make sense to talk about the towers utilized while driving "from" one "to" the other.

    It should also be noted that on both your I-70 example and my I-35 example, the directions along which you drive are 90 degrees from the named spurs. For example, I-35W goes north and south, and I-70N goes east and west.

  4. #2044
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    East-central Florida.
    Posts
    3,257
    There was a 1960-ish science fiction short story wherein mass-murdering criminals are sentenced to be executed annually. After they hang, future science repairs their broken necks and rehabilitates them in time for a repeat. I think I read it in one of the Playboy collections.

  5. #2045
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    9,071
    Quote Originally Posted by DonM435 View Post
    There was a 1960-ish science fiction short story wherein mass-murdering criminals are sentenced to be executed annually. After they hang, future science repairs their broken necks and rehabilitates them in time for a repeat. I think I read it in one of the Playboy collections.
    It's probably a good idea to quote in posts like this. I had no idea what this had to do with cell phone towers on roads until I figured out you're probably responding to the discussion about repeat executions.
    As above, so below

  6. #2046
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Clear Lake City, TX
    Posts
    9,048
    Quote Originally Posted by SeanF View Post
    Interstate 35 splits into 35W and 35E as it goes through Minneapolis/St. Paul.
    Same for Fort Worth/Dallas.
    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
    Isaac Asimov

    Moderation will be in purple.
    Rules for Posting to This Board

  7. #2047
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    East-central Florida.
    Posts
    3,257
    Quote Originally Posted by DonM435 View Post
    There was a 1960-ish science fiction short story wherein mass-murdering criminals are sentenced to be executed annually. After they hang, future science repairs their broken necks and rehabilitates them in time for a repeat. I think I read it in one of the Playboy collections.
    December 28th by Theodore L. Thomas.

    "But why must they always do it on December 28th? "

    I got to read it in The Playboy Book of Science Fiction and Fantasy, a 1968 paperback. This was a Godsend, as I couldn't read the magazine in those days at my age without being branded a deviated pree-vert

    You can read it here: http://www.undergroundvoices.com/UVThomasTheodoreL.htm

  8. #2048
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    East-central Florida.
    Posts
    3,257
    Just got an e-mail that said "The North elevator is currently down."

    Going down is half of its job. Is it therefore 50 per cent functional?

  9. #2049
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,765
    A moment ago I thought the "Post Quick Reply" button
    said "Post Quirky Reply".

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
    http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

    "I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
    were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

    "The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
    point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

  10. #2050
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Great NorthWet
    Posts
    7,545
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    A moment ago I thought the "Post Quick Reply" button
    said "Post Quirky Reply".

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
    That works around here about 80% of the time!
    Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.

  11. #2051
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    East-central Florida.
    Posts
    3,257
    You mean that I spend all this time composing quirky replies, and there's a button to do it for me???

  12. #2052
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,366
    I see an article with this title:

    Classic 1937 steam engine soon to run carbon-free

    http://www.futureoftech.msnbc.msn.co...on-free-793578

    Naturally I was thinking it would be a story about modifying an old steam engine to run on hydrogen (or maybe something more exotic) to avoid running it on a carbon-based fuel, but as I start reading, the very first sentence is:

    A steam train built in 1937 is getting a makeover that will turn it into a “higher-speed” locomotive that runs on biocoal, a coal-like fuel made with woody plant material.
    So they're actually running it on a fuel that is mostly carbon. How can that possibly mean it is running carbon-free? Well, it's like this:

    Biocoal has the same energy density as regular coal, but is cleaner burning, and since trees (the fuel source) sequester carbon as they grow, the system is considered carbon neutral, according to Ward.

    The heat used to process the fuel comes from biogas, which makes the process 94 to 96 percent thermally efficient, he said.

    “So you actually do have something that is as close to carbon neutral as possible,” he noted.
    And the article repeatedly uses the phrase "carbon neutral." Apparently to whoever wrote the headline, if a process is more or less carbon neutral, it's carbon free. I guess if you used sequestration for a coal power plant, that would make it carbon free too, right?

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  13. 2012-May-25, 12:12 PM
    Reason
    Double post because I for some reason couldn't see the first one after posting

  14. #2053
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    18,408
    So the headline editor is an idiot, that's not really news.

    What I think is interesting is the use of "biocoal" which as far as I can see it just plain old charcoal rebranded to sound green.
    __________________________________________________
    Reductionist and proud of it.

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
    Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
    A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain

  15. #2054
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    20,108
    Quote Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen View Post
    So the headline editor is an idiot, that's not really news.
    Yep; I actually think this one's rather mild to many that I've seen.

    Quote Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen View Post
    What I think is interesting is the use of "biocoal" which as far as I can see it just plain old charcoal rebranded to sound green.
    I agree.
    And; this may have the same energy density as coal, how does it compare to plain wood?
    And; is energy density a big issue for a big heavy locomotive like that?
    Locomotives started off as carbon neutral. Wood was first.

    The best was this:
    And since these units are based on age-old steam engine technology, they won’t require high-tech skills to perform routine maintenance or fix broken parts.
    Two big reasons steam locomotives were retired was because they required high maintenance and had dangers of the pressurized steam/fire.

    Although; I would love to see something like that doing 130mph. Those pushrods would probably look like they were ready to fly apart.

  16. #2055
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    12,081
    And since these units are based on age-old steam engine technology, they won’t require high-tech skills to perform routine maintenance or fix broken parts.
    Ugh. That's the same kind of 'if it's older it must be simple' line of reasoning that leads to claims like, "Aliens must have made the pyramids!"

  17. #2056
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    18,408
    I think the real issue is that wood is more complicated to burn cleanly (especially with regards to particulates in the smoke).
    __________________________________________________
    Reductionist and proud of it.

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
    Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
    A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain

  18. #2057
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Sioux Falls, SD
    Posts
    7,915
    I just got an e-mail from our local minor league baseball team with the subject line, "Kids are FREE in June!"

    Anybody want any? I'm not sure if there's a limit on how many I can get...

  19. #2058
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    20,108
    Quote Originally Posted by SeanF View Post
    I just got an e-mail from our local minor league baseball team with the subject line, "Kids are FREE in June!"
    I've had plenty of people say "want my kids?" So; I'm not sure if that offer is really noteworthy.

  20. #2059
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    20,108
    I don't know if this one is bad reporting, consumer reports making a big blunder, or even if my math is horribly rusty, but....

    'Eco' models aren't worth the money, study shows

    I agree with thier message about valuing the payback of better mileage, but thier "worst case" math seems to be WAAAY off.
    The special model undergoes some aerodynamic “tweaks,” and gets low rolling resistance tires – which add $800 to the price tag when compared to the similar Cruze LT. But even then, fuel economy increases just 1 mile per gallon, to a mid-pack 27 mpg in the City. Highway mileage jumps 4 mpg, to 40.
    For the typical owner, that would yield just $20 a year in savings for the typical driver clocking 12,000 miles a year and paying $4 a gallon – and require a 38-year “payback” to recover the Cruze Eco’s added cost.
    For city, I get:
    12000/27 = 444.4 gal
    12000/26 = 461.5 gal
    17.1 * 4 = $68 11 year payback - off by a factor of over 3

    Then they go on to compare it to cars using combined mileage which turns it into apples and oranges.
    On top of that, they use city only numbers for "typical" owners. Does a typical driver only drive city miles?
    I'm sure for the typical driver it would be somewhere between the $68 savings and the highway $132 savings, but I don't know how they figure combined mileage.

    I probably wouldn't have caught this normally, but I've done these payback calculations myself. Of course my decisions were based on far more than mileage. In fact, I bought the LT in question.

    BTW:
    Savings would be a little better, the non-profit publication added, for those who do a lot of highway driving.
    Would up to twice as much be a "little" better?

  21. #2060
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Near Grover's Mill
    Posts
    2,728
    Quote Originally Posted by NEOWatcher View Post
    For city, I get:
    12000/27 = 444.4 gal
    12000/26 = 461.5 gal
    17.1 * 4 = $68 11 year payback - off by a factor of over 3
    Maybe "low rolling resistance tires" are really expensive and don't last very long.
    I may have many faults, but being wrong ain't one of them. - Jimmy Hoffa

  22. #2061
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    563
    Quote Originally Posted by NEOWatcher View Post
    For city, I get:
    12000/27 = 444.4 gal
    12000/26 = 461.5 gal
    17.1 * 4 = $68 11 year payback - off by a factor of over 3
    Looks like the "bad math" is due to "rounding errors"

    According to the actual CR data:
    Std model annual fuel use: 455 gal or 26.37 mpg ~ 26 (reported mpg)
    Eco model annual fuel use: 450 gal or 26.67 mpg ~ 27

    So the conclusion is correct (based on CR data) of about a $20/yr gas savings for the Chevy Cruze econo model.
    Last edited by BioSci; 2012-May-31 at 11:03 PM. Reason: mpg not mph

  23. #2062
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    9,071
    Quote Originally Posted by SeanF View Post
    I just got an e-mail from our local minor league baseball team with the subject line, "Kids are FREE in June!"
    Actually, they are free. It's just that after you get them they start costing (lots of) money.
    As above, so below

  24. #2063
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    4,365
    Quote Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen View Post
    So the headline editor is an idiot, that's not really news.

    What I think is interesting is the use of "biocoal" which as far as I can see it just plain old charcoal rebranded to sound green.
    I hate those rebrandings. Was looking at an otherwise rather nice frying pan the other week that was marked up 30-50% from comparable pans because they gave it a brown handle and wrote "with recycled aluminium" on the label.
    ...as far as I know, recycling aluminium is business practice...
    Last edited by jokergirl; 2012-Jun-01 at 09:27 AM. Reason: jet lag+typing=bad.

  25. #2064
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    12,081
    Quote Originally Posted by jokergirl View Post
    I hate those rebrandings. Was looking at an otherwise rather nice frying pan the other week that was marked up 30-50% from comparable pans because they gave it a brown handle and wrote "with recycled aluminium" on the label.
    ...as far as I know, recycling aluminium is business practice...
    Depends. I'm not sure what the cost of recycling aluminum is compared to the cost of using "new" aluminum. But as an uninformed person, I've always assumed the markup was indeed due to the fact that they know "green people" will pay extra to know they're using recycled materials, rather than an increase in the cost of manufacture.

  26. #2065
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Sioux Falls, SD
    Posts
    7,915
    Quote Originally Posted by Fazor View Post
    Depends. I'm not sure what the cost of recycling aluminum is compared to the cost of using "new" aluminum. But as an uninformed person, I've always assumed the markup was indeed due to the fact that they know "green people" will pay extra to know they're using recycled materials, rather than an increase in the cost of manufacture.
    As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing wrong with that.

    I don't think I'd call it "rebranding," either, it's just explicitly informing customers of a potential advantage that they may have otherwise been unaware of.

    Now, when they decided that "jungles" were now to be called "rainforests," that was rebranding.

  27. #2066
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    20,108
    Quote Originally Posted by BioSci View Post
    Looks like the "bad math" is due to "rounding errors"
    That makes sense. I didn't see the actual basis. Do you have a link?
    I can only assume it was CR's testing and am curious as to how they tested it and what kinds of error margins would have existsd.

  28. #2067
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Great NorthWet
    Posts
    7,545
    Aluminum is, I think, one of the most cost-effective materials to recycle. It takes pretty vast amounts of electricity to produce it from the ore, much less to just melt it down. Virtually all aluminum products probably contain a high percentage of recycled material. So yeah, they're just trying to take advantage of people wanting to be green.
    Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.

  29. #2068
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    20,108
    Quote Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
    Aluminum is, I think, one of the most cost-effective materials to recycle. It takes pretty vast amounts of electricity to produce it from the ore, much less to just melt it down. Virtually all aluminum products probably contain a high percentage of recycled material. So yeah, they're just trying to take advantage of people wanting to be green.
    Just to throw a number on that...
    According to This source, the 2006 ratio was 34:16.4, or about a third from recycling. (of course that number is only going up as more is in circulation)

  30. #2069
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    563
    Quote Originally Posted by NEOWatcher View Post
    That makes sense. I didn't see the actual basis. Do you have a link?
    I can only assume it was CR's testing and am curious as to how they tested it and what kinds of error margins would have existsd.
    The full data is from CR's testing - may require a subscription to read.
    http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/c...-and-specs.htm

    From CR's site:
    Fuel economy

    We perform our own fuel-economy tests, independent of the government's often-quoted EPA figures and the manufacturers' claims. Using a precise fuel-flow measuring device spliced into the fuel line, we run three separate circuits. One is on a public highway at a steady 65 mph. That circuit is run in both directions to counteract any wind effect. A second is a stop-and-go simulated city-driving test done at our track. The third is a 150-mile "one-day trip" using several drivers taking turns around a 30-mile loop of public roads that include a highway section, secondary roads, and rural byways. CR's overall fuel-economy numbers are derived from those three fuel consumption tests.
    The actual number is a bit arbitrary compared to a particular individuals usage but the comparison between models is likely fairly good.

  31. #2070
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    20,108
    Quote Originally Posted by BioSci View Post
    ...may require a subscription to read.
    Yes; which is what I suspected. But; the paragraph you quoted was very informative.
    It is enough to show me the test conditions and enough to show that they put some thought into balancing out driving variations. I still have things I can bring up as factors, but I think it's close enough at this point because they did point out city/highway/mixed differences in the numbers.

    But; there is one thing that I wanted to add with the differences for "eco" models and hybrids.
    For "eco" models it seems like the savings are mainly highway because of aerodymics, weight and such. The engines are generally the same which means that acceleration and idling losses will be similar.
    While hybrid technology favors the city because of energy storage.

    I've seen similar arguments brought forth when hybrids were hitting the market.

Similar Threads

  1. Im sorry! But please read!
    By Ticket To Heaven in forum Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 2009-Feb-10, 08:18 AM
  2. What to read first?
    By mgladstonez in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 2007-Jan-26, 12:47 AM
  3. How does this read?
    By Glom in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2006-Mar-01, 03:01 AM
  4. Read this
    By skywatcher in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 2003-Jun-14, 03:10 AM
  5. Must Read!!!
    By Deep_Eye in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 1970-Jan-01, 12:00 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: