headers
De Clarke | 1 Apr 2003 07:56
Favicon

it's not April Fools yet...


if this had appeared on April 1 I would know what to think, but it is
datelined March 31.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-2-629399,00.html

could it be -- not an urban legend after all??? I mean, this is one of
the ur-legends, a byword among debunkers and skeptics. it's used as a
classic example of how gullible people are, that they "probably believe
that oil companies suppressed a viable super-high-efficiency engine 
design." a bit of an embarrassment for debunkers everywhere if it 
actually turns out, against all odds, to be true!

but perhaps is this just another phase of a very long-running hoax?
if it were the Mirror or the Sun I would also know what to think, but
the Times is afaik fairly respectable. any of our UK readers able to
offer a sanity check?

de

--

-- 
.............................................................................
:De Clarke, Software Engineer UCO/Lick Observatory, UCSC:
:Mail: de@... | :
:Web: www.ucolick.org | Don't Fear the Penguins :
:1024D/B9C9E76E F892 5F17 8E0A F095 05CD EE8B D169 EDAA B9C9 E76E:
Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Simon Baddeley | 1 Apr 2003 10:48
Picon
Picon

Re: [CF] it's not April Fools yet...

http://www.mikebrownsolutions.com/fish3.htm

OK?

Simon

----- Original Message ----- 
From: De Clarke 
To: CarFree@... 
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 6:56 AM
Subject: [CF] it's not April Fools yet...

if this had appeared on April 1 I would know what to think, but it is
datelined March 31.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-2-629399,00.html

could it be -- not an urban legend after all??? 
To change your settings (such as receiving CarFree in digest form or read the archive:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CarFree 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
David Lane | 1 Apr 2003 18:04

Re: [CF] it's not April Fools yet...

Well, it seems Pogue did exist, and he worked on a carburetor.

This link is to the Urban Legends Reference Pages, which I consider a 
reliable and useful source:
http://www.snopes.com/autos/business/carburetor.php

The rest of the story seems a mix of myth and reality. Sounds like 
someone is looking into determining how close to real, or far from 
real, the exagerated claims of Pogues carburetor were. I wish them 
luck, and hope they are successful in bringing whatever light they can 
to the "mystery."

$0.02: I think in our sensationalist media, things tend to be 
categorized as "amazingly over the top, out of this world advance," or 
"terribly over-hyped hoax (and therefore useless technology)," with 
little room in between for "great advance, but not as great as first 
hoped." I suspect the UK source might have a bit more restraint, as it 
were, and therefore can carry an article like this without people 
jumping out of windows (which is, unfortunately, closer to what we 
might reasonably expect from the mainstream American population).

David

On Monday, March 31, 2003, at 09:56 PM, De Clarke wrote:

>
> if this had appeared on April 1 I would know what to think, but it is
> datelined March 31.
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-2-629399,00.html
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
De Clarke | 1 Apr 2003 21:00
Favicon

life's little ironies


-----------------

http://search.ft.com/search/article.html?id=030331000846

The sight of US army Humvee troop carriers stranded in the Iraqi desert
waiting for refuelling tankers to catch up with them has not only alarmed
commanders in the battlefield. It has also highlighted efforts by the US
military to develop a new generation of vehicles that rely on new forms
of propulsion, cutting the cost of fuel and reducing US dependence on
foreign sources of oil for future global military missions.

The fuel cost numbers are startling. A gallon of modified jet fuel, which
is used in tanks as well as aircraft, costs only 84 cents when bought
wholesale from multinational oil companies such as Shell and ExxonMobil.

By the time the cost of transporting the fuel to the battlefield is added,
that sum can rise to hundreds of dollars per gallon.

The US army says that for the campaign in Afghanistan, where there are no
reliable or significant sources of fuel, the army depends on fuel flown
in by helicopter from ships in the Indian Ocean. The cost per gallon:
about $600 (557, £381).

The US army estimates it costs about $150 per gallon for fuel used in
Iraq. The fuel comes from 23 US military dumps scattered across the Middle
East, a number that was doubled in preparation for the current conflict.

...
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
dubluth | 2 Apr 2003 05:28
Picon
Favicon

Re: life's little ironies

> ...
> 
> -----------------
> 
> There's something particularly -- ummm, Swiftian? or perhaps Vonnegutian --
> about American taxpayers paying $150/gal for fuel for vehicles to fight a 
> war at least one of whose purposes is to keep fuel cheap for American taxpayers.
> 

Since our paying $150/gal for some of this stuff couldn't possibly be the realization of any of the war
makers goals ;)
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Theo Schmidt | 2 Apr 2003 12:17
Picon

Re: it's not April Fools yet...

De Clarke wrote:
>
> if this had appeared on April 1 I would know what to think, but it is
> datelined March 31.
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-2-629399,00.html

Simon wrote:

>http://www.mikebrownsolutions.com/fish3.htm
>
>OK?

I think the above page describes the situation well:
>"Engineers who have tried in the past to build a carburettor using 
>Pogue's theories have found the results less than satisfactory. 
>Charles Friend, of Canada's National Research Council, told 
>Marketplace, a consumer affairs programme: "You can get fantastic 
>mileage if you're prepared to de-rate the vehicle to a point where, 
>for example, it might take you ten minutes to accelerate from 0 to 
>30 miles an hour.""

Car mileage is so poor because the engines are dimensioned for 
acceleration, also to some extent for ridiculously high speeds. This 
means that they are 10 to 100 times as powerful than really needed. 
Cars with "poor" performance (in relation to others) simply aren't 
popular. People have become accustomed to be able to go uphill as 
fast as they want even in a fully loaded vehicle, etc.

The second reason is that internal combustion engines have no torque
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Ken Kifer | 2 Apr 2003 15:42

Where has all the music gone?

I admit that this is off topic, but I can't get it out of my head except by
telling it to someone else.

Sometime during the 80's, I quit listening to music on the radio. There was no
decision on my part or any event, but I became less and less interested. I
remember processing honey one day, and my hands were sticky (so I couldn't touch
the dial), and the damn radio station kept playing the same stupid songs over
and over until I wanted to scream, but I saw that as just a bad music day.

At any rate, I used to have the radio on all the time, and now I never turn it
on except to listen to the news or Garrison Keillor. My son has wanted to know
why I quit listening, and I haven't had a clear answer. I have continued to like
the same music I always liked, so the only answer I could supply was that the
music had changed somehow. The best answer I could give is that music used to
mean something to me but that current music doesn't.

This last weekend, I heard on NPR a discussion of why this war won't produce any
protest music on the radio. In the 60's, there was very little control, but now
major companies control what music can be produced and what music can be
played. Suddenly, I had my answer to why I could no longer enjoy music. All
that is necessary is for one person to make the decision as to which music is
appropriate and which is not, the same way we get TV programs.

I went down to the sacred store
Where I heard the music years before,
But the men there said the music wouldn't play.
And in the streets the children screamed,
The lovers cried, and poets dreamed,
But not a word was spoken,
The bells they all were broken.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
Helen Deborah Vecht | 2 Apr 2003 16:03
Picon

Re: [CF] Where has all the music gone?

Thus spake Ken Kifer <kenkifer@...>

> I went down to the sacred store
> Where I heard the music years before,
> But the men there said the music wouldn't play ** ****.
> And in the streets the children screamed,
> The lovers cried, and poets dreamed,
> But not a word was spoken,
> The ****** bells -they- all were broken.

Um, aren't there a few words missing?
Bye Bye

--

-- 
Helen D. Vecht: helenvecht@...
Edgware.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Tom Frost Jr | 2 Apr 2003 20:13
Picon
Favicon

Fwd: Re: WAKE UP

Today, the e-mail list of a bike club near me (in
Susquehanna County, Pa.) got on the subject of the
goal of reduced car use. Here's my participation in
the thread, more of which can be read at
www.topica.com/lists/NewMilfordBikeShop

--- Tom Frost Jr <tomfrostjr@...> wrote:
> 
> --- Craig Thomas <CThomas@...> wrote: 
> > The answer is more walking, biking, using fuel
> > efficient cars (+30 mpg) and
> > programs to get cars off the road (start with
> > transferring lucrative highway
> > funds into mass transportation projects). I think
> > $15 per gallon would go a
> > long way towards changing our culture and
> preparing
> > us for the day when, God
> > forbid, the gasoline runs out!!! We can start now
> > at $2 per gallon, raise
> > it $1 per gallon per year for taxes to fund these
> > projects to wean us off of
> > our addiction and move us into the future.
> 
> 
> TF: I agree with Craig except on two points: 
> 
> 1. Reducing car use shouldn't be a _stated_ goal, at
> least not of the cycling community, because that
> makes
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 613 comments |
headers
RIIN GILL | 2 Apr 2003 21:24
Picon

Re: [CF] Fwd: Re: WAKE UP

On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Tom Frost Jr wrote:

> > I'm not holding my breath for the government to lead
> > the way on anything like that either, of course: In
> > 1998, I walked into the Gibson Barracks of Tom
> > Ridge's
> > gang-bangers to confront them about a cop (who
> > obviously wasn't on any emergency call) passing me
> > when I was going 100% of the speed limit. I was told
> > to leave to avoid arrest for disorderly conduct!

I think a lot of cops feel they are exempt from obeying laws. Years ago,
before I started cycling, I was in line behind a police car at a drive
through bank. The officer was having a little trouble doing his banking.
It seems he didn't have his driver's license with him. Uh...gee, if he
WAS DRIVING HIS CAR AROUND you'd think he might have that with him! My
respect for police officers went down about 20 notches that day.

> > The enemy is not cars. The enemy is the doublethink
> > that the slower of any two road users is the one
> > creating a speed difference. Turn that doublethink
> > around, to what almost all traffic laws are based on
> > -
> > i.e. that the _faster_ of any two road users is the
> > one creating a speed difference (and hence
> > infringement, if any, upon the other's space) - and
> > you have the growth in car use automatically
> > stopping
> > when the first road in any given area is filled to
> > as
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane