Slashdot Mirror

How do I do a conference call on my blackberry (ie add a second party into a call)? That's a pretty useful business function and I don't think it exists on a blackberry

Most phones and carriers support 3 way calling, even if it's not obvious how to do it. The carriers like it because it lets them bill you for double airtime.

Googling "blackberry 3 way calling" gave these. Obviously the specifics depend on your exact device; you should check your phone's manual and/or the carrier's instructions.

http://www.wikihow.com/Three-Way-Call-With-Your-Blackberry

      1. Dial your first call using the address book or dial it with the keypad, or await someone else calling.
      2. When the two lines are connected, press the Talk button, or the green call button.
      3. On this screen, type the name or number you want to call. Then press the Talk button again.
      4. Once you are connected with the third line, press the Menu button.
      5. Once the window is opened, press the option that says, Join.
      6. The two calls are now connected.
      7. To disconnect from one caller but not the other, press the Menu button again.
      8. Go to the End Call option.
      9. A new screen will pop up asking you who you want to disconnect.
    10. Chose the caller you would like to disconnect.
    11. You have disconnected them.

http://communication.howstuffworks.com/host-conference-call-using-your-mobile-device1.htm

To initiate a three-way call from your BlackBerry:

      1. On the home screen, click phone.
      2. Click the trackwheel, and select new call.
      3. Highlight a contact, click the trackwheel and select call.
      4. While the first contact is highlighted, click the trackwheel and select hold.
      5. Click the trackwheel and select new call.
      6. Select the second recipient, click the trackwheel, and select call.
      7. After you're connected to the second call, click the trackwheel and select join.
      8. To add more callers to the conference, repeat Steps 4 through 7.
      9. Terminate the conference call as you would a phone call.

Oxygen Toxicity

O2 bad link

Apollo 1 didn't have this situation since it was a short test. The *actual* missions had much lower partial pressures Apollo 1 details

"...Since the CM was designed to endure outward pressure in the vacuum of space, the plugs-out test had been run with the cabin pressure at over 16 psi, almost 2 psi above the ambient sea level pressure at Launch Complex 34 and near the upper limits of measuring devices in the spacecraft. This represented over 5 times the oxygen density carried within the Mercury and Gemini capsules while in spaceflight (which was only 3 psi but equal to the partial pressure of oxygen at sea level and thus very breathable). ..."

just because it doesn't kill you in 2 minutes, doesn't mean its not dangerous.

There was an article about UPS testing a small fleet of Hydraulic Diesel Hybrids some while back.

Basically you have a small diesel motor running a high pressure hydraulic pump. This pump moves the fluid from a low side tank to a high side tank. The drive train is powered by a couple hydraulic pumps that allow fluid to flow from the high side to the low side. Regenerative braking is made possible by switching the output and input valves when you want to stop or slow down. So that when you brake the rotation of the axle moves fluid from the low side to the high side.

The tanks are actually large, high strength, bladders inside a carbonfiber shell. The pressure is maintained/provided by compressed nitrogen if I recall correctly, and the action of the diesel powered pump.

The biggest downside I recall reading about that would hinder it's adoption by the public at large is that it's apparently a pretty loud process and since there isn't a big battery pack running AC and stereo while stopped is an issue.

Anyways link here with a cute animation a few pages in http://auto.howstuffworks.com/hydraulic-hybrid.htm

Indeed, it's strange that the summary says that when the same company makes ones ten times the price. And they come with a shiny silver vacuum tube amplifier (I think that's what they are) that would to me kind of defeat half the purpose of having headphones: portability.

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/ces200211.htm

I'm hoping at least a few people who bought them are using them just to listen to their low-quality MP3s.

I found this page on making your own vacuum tube amplifiers, for anyone interested in trying to make something similar for a lot less than $15k:
http://diyaudioprojects.com/Tubes/tubes.htm

It is printed by the government. Remember that a dollar essentially represents a dollar's worth of work (which is obviously subjective). As more work is done, more money needs to be printed to represent that work. That new money is injected into the economy via loans. This thread offers a pretty good explanation of how this works. It also links to this article which also describes how money is created and injected into the economy.

"Skink Works"?

There was a book about stealth projects developed at a facility named after a small ground-dwelling lizard?

That's the Navy for you. At least the Air Force always went to the right place.

(Yes, I know it was a typo. It's just a very funny typo.)

Here ya go!

Some numbers to consider:

A380: Range: 14,800 km Capacity: 525 - 853 Speed: 900 km/h
747-400: Range: 13,450 km Capacity: 416 - 524 Speed: 913 km/h

Here's a more detailed comparison

It should also be noted that today's 747's aren't the same as the ones that flew in the 60s. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747#Improved_747_versions

how do you turn ink into fine mist of few molecules in diameter? by creating massively fluctuating magnetic field to vibrate the ink molecules - thats why you need electricity to print (technically water should work too, since MRI works in similar principle - the water molecules fluctuate according to magnetic field - but you still need some charged, (water is polar) or some other molecule that will respond to magnetic field

Nope. Try again.
Pretty much all inkjet printers in use today use either a bubble jet (thermal bubble) or a piezoelectric method to produce fine droplets. Bubble jet printers use fine nozzles that have a heater located just inside the nozzle. When the heater turns on it creates a small vapor bubble that shoots ink out the nozzle. Piezoelectric printers use a piezoelectric actuator located just inside the nozzle that shoots ink out the nozzle. There are no commercial inkjet printers that use magnetic fields in the fashion you describe and I'm not certain that what you describe is a practical design for an inkjet printer.

By the way, an MRI does not work the way you are describing. The magnetic field is stationary, not "massively fluctuating". It also does not work on molecules, rather it works directly on the nuclei of atoms. This large, stationary magnetic field causes the magnetic moments of certain nuclei, such as hydrogen nuclei, to line up with the magnetic field. A radio signal of a frequency specific to that nuclei is tightly focused on a small position. This rotates the nuclei that are at that spot and when the radio signal is removed from that position the nuclei snap back, radiating a radio signal of their own which is detected by the instrumentation.

Please, if you don't completely understand something technical then don't spread misinformation or supposition. A few seconds with Google would have shown you how both these things actually work. Better yet, go take a course in physics or chemistry and directly learn this stuff for yourself.

how do you turn ink into fine mist of few molecules in diameter? by creating massively fluctuating magnetic field to vibrate the ink molecules - thats why you need electricity to print (technically water should work too, since MRI works in similar principle - the water molecules fluctuate according to magnetic field - but you still need some charged, (water is polar) or some other molecule that will respond to magnetic field

Nope. Try again.
Pretty much all inkjet printers in use today use either a bubble jet (thermal bubble) or a piezoelectric method to produce fine droplets. Bubble jet printers use fine nozzles that have a heater located just inside the nozzle. When the heater turns on it creates a small vapor bubble that shoots ink out the nozzle. Piezoelectric printers use a piezoelectric actuator located just inside the nozzle that shoots ink out the nozzle. There are no commercial inkjet printers that use magnetic fields in the fashion you describe and I'm not certain that what you describe is a practical design for an inkjet printer.

By the way, an MRI does not work the way you are describing. The magnetic field is stationary, not "massively fluctuating". It also does not work on molecules, rather it works directly on the nuclei of atoms. This large, stationary magnetic field causes the magnetic moments of certain nuclei, such as hydrogen nuclei, to line up with the magnetic field. A radio signal of a frequency specific to that nuclei is tightly focused on a small position. This rotates the nuclei that are at that spot and when the radio signal is removed from that position the nuclei snap back, radiating a radio signal of their own which is detected by the instrumentation.

Please, if you don't completely understand something technical then don't spread misinformation or supposition. A few seconds with Google would have shown you how both these things actually work. Better yet, go take a course in physics or chemistry and directly learn this stuff for yourself.

A correction of fact is called for.

• Escape velocity: 25,040 mph; 40,320 kph
• Orbital velocity*: 17,000 mph; 27,360 kph

*Orbital velocity varies; above is for circular LEO (about 150 miles (240 km) altitude)

Minimum orbital velocity is about 68% of escape velocity. Source: How Stuff Works

Points of this post:

1. It usually takes less than a minute to google a technical term that is not in your daily vocabulary, and this is usually a good idea even for /. posts, unless your long term strategy for earning money and influencing people includes looking stupid in front of a world wide forum.
2. The parent post's intended point is still valid even if it demonstrates an insulting lack of care in preparation: Iran now has demonstrated mastery of a major component of a worldwide delivery system.

"for no return other than glory and prestige." I wouldn't say that's entirely true: http://science.howstuffworks.com/ten-nasa-inventions1.htm http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/en/kids/spinoffs2.shtml Some of these I would say were driven by NASA, but not necessarily invented.

Or to put it another way, "They just don't make 'em like that anymore."

Hey! Chill... OK...

As for how much do your lights drain? Not that much really...
You are forgetting that your engine is pushing couple of tons of metal and plastic plus all the contents of the car - on a coke bottle of fuel.
As for the dynamo cranking story - you had a very small output dynamo.
Just think about all those hand-cranked flashlights and radios that give hours of service from minutes of cranking.

As for how much do all those extra electric appliances in your car spend...
Sorry to not have a link for the video... But... I saw a German documentary on the topic last summer.
Specifically - how much more do your "little extras" spend.
They've loaded the car with a portable refrigerator, blasted music from speakers, air conditioning on with open windows, and various other thingamajigs turned on.

Ended up spending about 10-15% more gas then without all those power drainers.

Your car is generating far more power while moving than it can fit in it's comparatively small battery.
Which is there just to start the engine. That is why all the shiny things drain it in a matter of hours.
And it takes a long time to load cause it IS a big heavy lead-acid mother.

The tracks on a CD are spiral as well.

You can fake those auto-focus modes in even cheap cameras. As long as you know what auto-focus is trying to do, give this a shot:

0) I think even the cheapest models have a "focus on the center" mode--you might want to use that. If it doesn't, that is okay.
1) Get the camera to auto-focus on what you want by pressing the shutter button down half-way.
2) Keep holding the button down (but dont press it all the way so it takes a shot). Holding it down will lock the focus, apature and shutter.
3) Slightly move the camera side to side until you compose your shot. Moving forward or back from the subject will probably blur it.
4) Take the shot.
5) ???
6) Profit.

Obviously this method isn't perfect and depends on a lot of things like your distance to the subject. But if you know your camera, you can usually use this technique to fake the different auto-focus modes in higher end cameras. For those who haven't played with higher end stuff, they will usually let you specify exactly what position in the scene the camera should try to auto-focus on. My camera, for example, shows a square bracket that I can move around on the screen to tell it where to focus.

The HowStuffWorks article Why do CRT monitors contain lead? has an explanation The thick glass of the vacuum tube of CRT contains the lead in order to improve optical properties and shielding from the radiation of the electron gun. The lead amounts to 25% of the volume of the glass.

This linkshows a method of growing it vertically so allow optimal light exposure which apparently allows for greater growth (not sure how practical it is but at least it doesn't have to take much surface area)

Yeah, that hasn't panned out so far. Let see some large acrage and processing going on.
Really too soon to tell.

If what you say about algae pans out, that would be great.

Lets see. an acre is 40,000 square feet
You claim "can pump out thousands of gallons of bio-Diesel per acre"
According to this site, it's 100K per year:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/algae-biodiesel1.htm

over 2 gallons a year per sqr foot.

I use 300 gallon of gas per year. I would need 15 sqr feet.
Nice. a home conversion station and I could create my own biodiesal for my needs.

So
1) Create a home processor
2) create an easy to set up algae farm in the home
3) profit!

nice

The Mythbusters busted that one

Back in the early 90s, when Ford was re-designing the mustang, they used this very concept. Although some of the features were based on nostalgia, they put a lot of stock in the car's personality. They had three competing concepts: the sleak and friendly "Bruce Jenner", the angry agressive "Rambo", and the not-so-angry but still pumped-up "Arnold Schwarzenegger" concept. Bruce was seen by most market surveys as too wimpy. Rambo and Arnold were both popular but Ford pick Arnold. Here is a link http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1994-1995-1996-1997-1998-ford-mustang1.htm

When inventors come up with a new device, the first thing they want to do is patent it. Patents are a government's way of giving an inventor ownership of his or her creation. For a certain period of time, patent-holders are allowed to control how their inventions are used, allowing them to reap the financial rewards of their work. Patents are a palpable, legally-binding manifestation of a person's genius and innovation; they allow a person to actually own an idea.

from How stuff works
If it actually worked this would be good.

Worst... patent... ever...

I tend to agree. There should be stricter rules. But what happens is they start to come up with some rules to help prevent things like this and they are turned around to actually be used to cause more trolling.

There's a limit to even "professional" theives' skills.

You have never seen the TV show Masterminds have you? It's all risk vs. reward. If the reward is high enough, professional thieves will go to great lengths. Howstuffworks has an interesting article about the biggest diamond heists in history.

The important thing is to make sure the risk vs. reward is in your favor. A pro will do the homework and realize it's not worth his/her time and energy defeat all kinds of security measures to sell your laptop for $500 on the street.

Here is a Mil-Spec approved permanent SSD erasure device: http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/hammer-1.jpg

http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/lightsaber.htm/printable

Just read the article for God's sake http://science.howstuffworks.com/plasma-converter.htm/printable

Their web site just screams "vaporware". In fact, the useful-scale project has been cancelled, and only a small "demonstration plant" will be built.

To respond to these two points.
1. This is an established technology, even though it hasn't been commercial for all that long.

2. A lot of projects are being cancelled as collateral damage from the mortgage meltown.

To respond to the rest of your post:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/plasma-converter.htm/printable

"the only way to vary its natural operating speed is to add or remove pressure from the chamber"

Wait, isn't this the perfect place for "Continuously Variable Transmission" to be used?

* Making hostile traffic inoperable on Air Force networks.

* Locating and identifying once-anonymous hackers.

* Enabling Air Force servers to evade or dodge electronic attacks, somehow.

Use PKI over VPN to carry all Air Force traffic and reject everything else. The VPN solution would run on customized hardened nodes spread across the globe. These would provide multiple redundant paths and the ability to reject 'electronic attacks', 'hostile traffic' and 'anonymous hackers' ...

The Outer Space Treaty which is the first basic attempt to regulate space is pretty much like the concept behind International Waters. The gist of Articles 6 and 7 are that governments are responsible for their citizens and corporate entities operation in outer space. If you need an analogy, this is sort of like how your parents are legally responsible for your actions when you are a child.

As for the equipment just floating around and something going catestrophically wrong, well, just look at the junk floating around earth's orbit, you don't have to imagine it, it's already real. In many respects it's no different than the great pacific garbage patch.

These happenings are perhaps one of the best illustrations of the Tragedy of the Commons effect. There are many sides to this argument about the commons. Feel free to discuss amongst yourselves ;^)

With all the people on this topic posting that it's an "engineering feat" to go 1000mph - tops of wheels at Mach 2.8 relative to the surrounding air, rims subject to 173 G of force - your response is to say that 1000mpg is "impossible" - and OT?

I appreciate that your math makes certain generous assumptions, e.g. cd=.1, A=1m^2, and "maximum" efficiency for an internal combustion engine burning gasoline. I will also admit that your knowledge of the physics here is better than mine. However, I wonder if there are hidden assumptions that you are not factoring. I say this, knowing that the maximum theoretical speed of a modem is 9600 baud, but higher bps are possible, and knowing that the death of Moore's Law has been predicted for the last several years - both of which predictions are based in seemingly sound physics calculations.

I would also like to point out that the Bugatti Veyron's 1000+ HP apparently is also physically impossible in less than a 16L engine (@ 6000RPM), unless some game-changing technology is added.

Two other responses to your comment have already pointed out that a) the SAE Supermileage contest had several entrants whose mileage exceeded 1000mpg, and b) the methods you provide in your calculations may not be inclusive of all potential energy capture mechanisms. In short, YMMV. (Sorry, couldn't resist :-)

Reading this discussion, it seems to me that the 1000mpg problem requires much more subtlety than the 1000mph problem, and is, to me, the far more interesting one.

I do hope that Slashdot won't degrade to a point where 1000mph = exciting, 1000mpg = off-topic.

Kiss the rings, baby! http://people.howstuffworks.com/enlarge-image.htm?terms=mafia&gallery=1&page=1

Um.. car batteries are deep cycle batteries.

Wrong. If you don't like that article, there are plenty more that explain the difference. I use deep cycle batteries in my boat and in my camp trailer (where they're charged by a 140 W solar panel). They're often about the same size as car batteries, and they use the same basic chemistry, but they're very different beasts.

This report reminds me of the many videos of people donning various winglike arm attachments and diving off platforms or tall structures to disastrous results.

This concept is not new. Everyone's been developing their own "car-o-plane" for ages. I'd be very surprised if this one goes anywhere beyond the previous ones

Marxist Communism has been the one of the most influential ideological developments of the past 200 years, yet very few Americans actually know anything about Communist ideology. Americans do have many misconceptions about Communism however, which have been intentionally promoted by American leadership. I say influential for a reason, because the 20th century was largely defined by the struggle between capitalism and communism. Communism is so influential because even capitalist countries like America were defined in the 20th century by their anti-Communist policies, and because communism was a critical factor in the development of the climate that led to World War II, as fascism itself developed in opposition to communism. There are three basic major socialist ideologies: Socialism, Anarchism, and Communism. These are all regarded as forms of socialism. Interestingly, socialism emerged as feudalism began to breakdown. Communist movements originally developed among the conservative feudal peasants and craftsmen. Many of the guilds from feudal times were workers' organizations that lived communal lifestyles. As the industrial revolutions began these communal lifestyles became jeopardized. Anarchist and Communist ideology were very similar at this point. In the 1700s, both of these movements were dominated by peasant farmers and guilds. More about the roots of Anarchism and Communism: http://www.marxists.org/subject/anarchism/index.htm Socialist ideology was a little more elitist and was more dominated by middle-class intellectuals and even some aristocrats. The early Communists and Anarchists sought to preserve the communal lands and communal lifestyle, but also sought to overthrow the feudal aristocracy to establish democracy, this made them both progressive and conservative. The early Socialists were a little more progressive and more into technological advance. The early communists were like the Amish in many ways. The Amish are an enduring holdover from the early communist movements. For more on the Amish see: http://people.howstuffworks.com/amish.htm Many of these groups opposed progress, and some participated in riots, the destruction of industrial machines, and the sabotage of factories. This was done because the new industrial forms of production were undermining rural life and were putting millions of craftsmen out of work by making their skills no longer valuable. Then Karl Marx came along in the mid 1800s and Marx denounced the "utopian socialism" and anti-progress communism of his day. Marx pointed out that capitalism was progressive because it represented an improvement in production. Marx hailed capitalism's triumph as a victory over feudalism. Marx said that industrialization was a good thing and that it should be embraced, that instead of opposing the progress of industrialization the goal should be to end wage-labor, and that the new industrial systems should be converted to communal property, much like the lands had been communal property just some 50 or 100 years prior. This changed the communist movement from being anti-technology to pro-technology, and led to the development of what most people recognize today as "Communist ideology". The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848 by Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels, and can be found here: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm It is important to distinguish the difference between Communism and Marxism. Marxism is basically a system of analysis, and a way to view the world. Communism, on the other hand, is basically a political movement, a form of government, a condition of society. It is also important to understand the difference between "communism" and the Communist Party. No country has ever had a communist system of government. The countries that we call "Communist" are countries

In the other news, robot fishes are reported to sing loud protests against roboplants that are invading their territory.

30mpg in a 5.7l V8 Firebird!? Highway driving at 30mph is not normal. I would have pulled over for a nap or to read. The truck driver could call about any problems.

My window sticker stated 19/28mpg. Those numbers are optimal and assumed unrealistic in the real world.

Edmunds specs the cars at 16/23 (very close to my numbers.)
Formula: http://www.edmunds.com/used/2002/pontiac/firebird/100002308/specs.html
TransAm: http://www.edmunds.com/used/2002/pontiac/firebird/100002310/specs.html

Consumer Guide observed ~16mpg:
http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/1993-to-2002-pontiac-firebird-4.htm

--
The Formula was a good deal. The extra $3000 for the TransAm added 50lbs for the rear spoiler and different nametags. No Formulas were available locally when I was searching. I have never seen a '99-'02 Formula; I check every time I see a Firebird without a spoiler. AutoTrader lists an '02 Formula just over 100 miles from here, and two '99 Formulas over 230 miles away (compare with 47 Firebirds and TransAms within 50 miles; 80 within 100 miles.)

My car is stock. Still has the skip-shift. I learned to skip second and third gears, only using them when I need to accelerate really fast. Tapping the gas pedal in first gear is enough for 20mph, then fourth can reach any legal speed in reasonable time. I learned second gear red-lines at ~50mph and third gear at ~80mph (both experiences were emergency manuevering to avoid accidents.) I cannot imagine maxing fourth gear -- probably hit the 167mph limiter first.

What causes the difference in our fuel efficiency? The hills around my home? Your customizations? Attitude?

Yes, I know a number of people who get this sort of mileage on the highway from their LS1 F-bodies and Corvettes. It's not that much of a mystery, it's called gearing. 6th gear in the T-56 is .50:1 at 60mph the engine is only turning 1400rpm.

Who said anything about 30mph? He was going 60mph, reread the message.

Actually, you're wrong about window sticker numbers. Those are averages. Take a closer look at your window sticker; usually under the city mpg rating (on GM window stickers anyways) you'll see "Actual mileage" listed and it will be a range of something like 15-21 city, 23-33 highway (not the numbers for my Formula as I can't find the window sticker for it :/ )

I could care less what Edmunds has to say about a car that they test drove for maybe a week. I've been driving my Formula since I bought it new in July of 2002. I'm pretty sur eI have a better idea of how to get the best mileage out of it. Of course keep in mind the mileage I get is because of how I drive. If I were driving like I used to I would be getting about 20mpg average ;)

You'd max out the car in 5th gear, not 4th and the limiter is at 162 mph ;)

Yeah, I bought the Formula for a specific reason: I was doing A LOT of drag racing at the track in my 2000 GTP and I wanted something faster and that would take modification a bit better than the GTP did. It only had two options (Hurst short throw shifter and chromed rims) and I could have done without both. I've seen a lot of Formula's. Not as many as TA's of course, because peopel got the silly notion that a TA is faster than a Formula. Amusingly enough it's usually the other way around, because the Formula is lighter. The TA does have a better suspension though. My Formula dyno'd 307hp 326ft-lb at the wheels stock, with 3100 miles on the odo, so it wasn't even fully broken in yet. GM rates those motors at 305hp at the motor. Mine was actually lower than a lot of peopl'e stock dyno numbers too.

I've probably got close to 2000 passes at t

or try to patent the process of water-blasting a block of aluminum...

"10:14 PT: "We discovered that if we started with a thick piece of aluminium and removed material to make physical features in the structure, we could make a much lighter but much stronger part. So that's how we make the palm rest of the MacBook air." He shows an image of an aluminum extrusion to show how the put it together. They create the "locating features," holes in the metal. Then rough cutting, a "noisy stage" where they remove large amounts of material quickly. Remove holes for key caps, and the trackpad. Then they blast it and anodize it."

I hope not, because watersaws and water blasters have been around for a LONG time. Applying that to make a laptop chassis is NOT innovative, novel, nor non-obvious. It's just a matter of marketing, snazziness, and money. Diving bells, diving suits, aircraft parts, and military vehicle parts as well as various medical and other types of instruments all can be made from parts cut, shaped or formed by water jets which can be much sharper in effect than using diamond saws or diamond-tipped drill bits.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/question553.htm

However, i wonder exactly how they will recycle the stamped/water-blasted parts punched out for keys and the trackpad and hinge area. If they are a "green company" they should publicly account for how it's being recaptured for recycling.

30mpg in a 5.7l V8 Firebird!? Highway driving at 30mph is not normal. I would have pulled over for a nap or to read. The truck driver could call about any problems.

My window sticker stated 19/28mpg. Those numbers are optimal and assumed unrealistic in the real world.

Edmunds specs the cars at 16/23 (very close to my numbers.)
Formula: http://www.edmunds.com/used/2002/pontiac/firebird/100002308/specs.html
TransAm: http://www.edmunds.com/used/2002/pontiac/firebird/100002310/specs.html

Consumer Guide observed ~16mpg:
http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/1993-to-2002-pontiac-firebird-4.htm

--
The Formula was a good deal. The extra $3000 for the TransAm added 50lbs for the rear spoiler and different nametags. No Formulas were available locally when I was searching. I have never seen a '99-'02 Formula; I check every time I see a Firebird without a spoiler. AutoTrader lists an '02 Formula just over 100 miles from here, and two '99 Formulas over 230 miles away (compare with 47 Firebirds and TransAms within 50 miles; 80 within 100 miles.)

My car is stock. Still has the skip-shift. I learned to skip second and third gears, only using them when I need to accelerate really fast. Tapping the gas pedal in first gear is enough for 20mph, then fourth can reach any legal speed in reasonable time. I learned second gear red-lines at ~50mph and third gear at ~80mph (both experiences were emergency manuevering to avoid accidents.) I cannot imagine maxing fourth gear -- probably hit the 167mph limiter first.

What causes the difference in our fuel efficiency? The hills around my home? Your customizations? Attitude?

It only makes sense if you are in a hurry, and no one else is already at the light (coming from your direction), and it is not a timed light, since the light won't change to green for you until you get to it .

only when in closed loop.

when outside closed loop your car runs off of a table in the prom and it is by default to run rich to protect the engine.

running lean = detonation and dead engines.

when in closed loop (which is why your oxygen sensor is there) it will adjust everything to keep it as close as possible to the desired AF ratio.

The harder you accelerate the more rich the ECM will set the system to when in open loop mode. It's not linear either.. it really depends on how the car maker set's it. the tables in a modern corvette run insanely pig rich at WOT from a standstill.

Check the following links for more info....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-fuel_ratio

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-injection.htm

Open Loop and Closed Loop are two terms used to describe the fueling mode the computer is in.

In closed loop fueling, the computer takes readings from the oxygen sensors which read +/- of 14.64 AFR (Stoich) and makes corrections for it. If your car is idling @ 13.5 AFR, the 02s can see this, and will know to pull out enough fuel to get back to stoich.

In open loop, the fueling is purely based off the MAF transfer function and the open loop fuel table. This table has to be calibrated any time you make MAF changes, and changes that affect the airflow of the MAF.

When a car is started, the computer is in open loop until certain criteria is met. The o2 sensors need to be heated to work properly, so this is the main reason there is a delay.

After the sensors are heated up, the car goes into closed loop and the O2 sensors make their corrections.

The computer will go back into open loop under a variety of conditions. Throttle Position (TP) is one way.

There are parameters in the computer that determine what the TP is for Open Loop, and other things.

When that TP is reached, and the car goes open loop, and richens up.

It's actually quite fascinating to learn about this stuff. When you get your head wrapped around it, tuning a car is easier than game programming.

In fact when you understand it you discover that turbo-ing or adding a supercharge to any car or engine is incredibly easy.

UPS and FedEx compete with the USPS? That's news to me. I forget where I read what i had originally, but if you check out these two pages, they seem to contradict that idea:

http://people.howstuffworks.com/usps5.htm
and
http://money.howstuffworks.com/ups3.htm

From this second link: "But picking up and delivering package is not all that UPS does. It carries mail and packages for one customer that most people would think of as a competitor - the United States Postal Service. In addition, UPS Supply Chain Solutions oversees some surprising jobs for other companies. Basically, UPS takes care of warehousing, shipping, delivery, logistics, repair and customs brokerage for businesses. It also offers consulting services to businesses to help them refine their warehousing, shipping and logistics practices."

UPS and FedEx compete with the USPS? That's news to me. I forget where I read what i had originally, but if you check out these two pages, they seem to contradict that idea:

http://people.howstuffworks.com/usps5.htm
and
http://money.howstuffworks.com/ups3.htm

From this second link: "But picking up and delivering package is not all that UPS does. It carries mail and packages for one customer that most people would think of as a competitor - the United States Postal Service. In addition, UPS Supply Chain Solutions oversees some surprising jobs for other companies. Basically, UPS takes care of warehousing, shipping, delivery, logistics, repair and customs brokerage for businesses. It also offers consulting services to businesses to help them refine their warehousing, shipping and logistics practices."

It would only kill you by suffocation

...or if you are a smoker.

That's what NASA needs to be doing. Spending all the money they are spending on the ISS and Space Shuttle and useless Moon and Mars missions on FINDING SOMETHING BETTER THAN ROCKETS!!!

This seems interesting enough to at least be building small scale prototypes of.

And space elevators too.

recently found this link to fuel consumption in 2007: http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/2007/index.html

It's best to consider PMPG (Passenger MPG). Also to note, if you have one person per car that average 40MPG you don't have still 40PMPG, you actually have 20PMPG. I get this number by total miles over total gallons used, if two 40MPG cars drive 40 miles you've used a total of 2 gallons, one for each car. thus total fuel consumption per person is 20, not 40.

Based on the first provided link A 60 passenger gets on average 6MPG, that's 360MPG.
A prius with 5 passengers would get up to 270PMPG.
Amtrack train with 350 passengers averages 1400PMPG but with only 200 people it averages 800.
A modern plane like the 747 gets ~100MPG as per Howstuffworks.com

To satisfy my own curiosity I calculated what it would cost (in terms of MPG per Person) to transport 5000 people using bus, boeing 747, Prius and train. Prius is hands down the worst of the above choices, then bus, then 747, then train(which is significantly greater than 747)
I should probably note that this neglects start and stop costs, so the above works well for long trips.
It also depends on how many people need to get between points A and B.

So really you should feel less guilty when flying across country than driving.

This shouldn't matter since clean diesel was implemented nationwide in the U.S. in 2007. It requires both the fuel and the car to abide by the clean diesel standards set forth, and is about 90+% cleaner than old diesel:

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/how-clean-diesel-fuel-works.htm

Chuck

Given the mess left behind by guns, along with the likelihood of screwing up with either guns, knives or drugs, if you want to be sure, hanging is actually a pretty descent way to terminate one's life.

Even if the actual death takes several minutes, the individual is most likely unconscious.

Even if you don't go for a long drop, several kids have successfully (if unintentionally) killed themselves with bathroom cloth towel machines by simply being patient.

Blacking out from oxygen loss to the brain doesn't generally seem to be as terrifying as suffocation/strangulation. (ie: cutting off the blood supply versus the air supply) and it's also much faster. However, achieving blood choke with a noose may be a challenge.

The last typical option that I skipped in the above is CO (carbon monoxide poisoning). This can be problematic as you need a vehicle, and privacy. It can also be dangerous to the discoverer if they wander into the area where you've contained the CO. ie: if you have a spouse/kids and you don't want them to be physically harmed or die when they find you.

no need to earn money, get it taxed,

In the USA, it's unfortunately a myth that you can't be taxed on bartered goods and services. See here: http://money.howstuffworks.com/bartering4.htm

Ludicrous and practically unenforceable, yes, but that's the way the IRS sees it. And occasionally people do get caught (i.e. if you do it way too much) -- see Ted Stevens, who thought he was being pretty clever.

no need to earn money, get it taxed,

In the USA, it's unfortunately a myth that you can't be taxed on bartered goods and services. See here: http://money.howstuffworks.com/bartering4.htm

Ludicrous and practically unenforceable, yes, but that's the way the IRS sees it. And occasionally people do get caught (i.e. if you do it way too much) -- see Ted Stevens, who thought he was being pretty clever.