Slashdot Mirror
Plane Simple Truth
brothke writes "In the TV show House, M.D., a premise that protagonist Dr. Greg House holds dear is that people are liars and stupid. Real life is often not far from House's observation. At the general public level, people are
often misled by their lack of common sense, their deficiency in understanding statistics and basic science, and therefore fall victim to the lies of the myriad
charlatans that claim to have something that fixes everything. A piece I wrote on that issue, New York
News Radio — The voice of bad science, details that.
While it is too broad to call the authors of Fuel efficiency of commercial aircraft: An overview of historical and future trends liars; their mediocre research created the scenario that far too many took their research as
reality. Known as the Peeters report, after lead author P.M. Peeters, the authors of Plane Simple Truth refute the wide-spread belief that the fuel efficiency gains in the commercial aviation sector are erroneous, which is the
principle theme of the Peeters report." Keep reading for the rest of Ben's review.
Plane Simple Truth
author
Geoffrey Thomas
pages
208
publisher
Aerospace Technical Publications
rating
9
reviewer
Ben Rothke
ISBN
978-0975234167
summary
Valuable book in the important debate over greenhouse gases and aviations contribution to it
The aviation industry is often an
environmental pariah, with environmentalists crying foul at the industry. But it is only a pariah due to flawed
data that negatively influences the public debate, and this book attempts to set the record straight. Plane Simple Truth is an articulate and extremely well-written and researched
rebuttal to the Peeters report, and other flawed studies.
The Peeters report flies in the face of reality, in which gains in jet engine efficiency over the last 40 years have been astounding. Contrast those gains with the popular Cadillac Escalade and similar SUV's whose mileage per gallon is often measured in single digits, and whose efficiencies have gone in the opposite direction.
The authors wrote Plane Simple Truth as they felt that never in recent history has an industry been so maligned and the public so misled by so much falsehood and distortion. With the Peeters report and climate activists pointing the accusing finger at the aviation industry, Plane Simple Truth is their defense.
The reality is that while the Detroit automakers were making huge gas guzzling SUV's well into 2008, companies such as Lockheed had fuel efficiency on their mind back to the 1970's. In fact, fuel efficiency has been a key factor in the aviation industry since the early days. This is based on simple economics and physics in that every pound of fuel, is a pound of payload that the airline cannot carry, which costs the airline money as fuel economy is a major driver in the industry. The bottom line is that fuel economy is absolutely critical in commercial aviation. Witness the number of aviation bankruptcies in 2008 when fuel prices soured.
Like a first-rate defense attorney, the book defends the industry against its charges. In every chapter, the authors show the errors, both intentional and those errors of omission, where incorrect reporting and research have negatively affected public opinion.
While not a book about the history of jet engines; the book details the fascinating and phenomenal improvement into the efficiency of the technology. But the underlying theme of the book is that of the environmental issues.
The book details the fundamental errors in the Peters and other environmental reports that have been often taken as the unquestionable truth. Rather than analyzing the facts like the book authors have done, the media often creates sensationalist headlines with an emphasis on short sound bites, often at the cost of scientific fact. Not only do the authors refute the Peeters report, they show in detail how important aviation is to the global economy. In fact, the aviation industry is critical to every growing economy.
The books 18 chapters cover the entire spectrum of jet emissions and their incredible development in detail. Current topics such as bio fuels and their promise, new engine technology, aerodynamic gains, green airlines and more are discussed. The book makes ample use of charts and photographs to illustrate its points.
Plane Simple Truth is a fascinating book that exposes the myriad errors of the flawed environmental studies. It is also a fascinating look at the development and history of jet engines, and the amazing progress that has come about in the last few decades. Huge strides have been made that increase power by significant amounts, while simultaneously cutting emissions. In fact, there are less environmental issues to worry about in the future due to aviation, given the significant strides that are being made.
The book makes many of its valuable points via the approach of letting charts and diagrams do the talking of often dry statistical facts. Be it fuel efficiency, less emissions, or toxic gases, the book shows that misplaced myths and the smoke and mirror games that are often used by those with an agenda, have negatively affected the public's view of aviation.
We have seen that a single bad piece of research is enough to derail an entire industry and mislead the press and politicians. Plane Simple Truthis an important book that has relevance to everyone, as there is no one that is not positively affected by the aviation industry.
While the industry still has a long way to go in other areas such as passenger satisfactions, lost luggage, air traffic control delays and much more, the engine makers have continually pushed the envelope in terms of fuel efficiency and environmental concerns, and they have done this for well over half a century. This was long before the environment was a cool topic. It was also done when jet fuel was still quite cheap.
While the book's authors are intimately involved in the airline industry and clearly pro-airline, and the book's publisher is Aerospace Technical Publications; the authors let the facts speak for themselves. While greenhouse gases and their potential negative effects are part of the public and scientific debate, the ability of modern jet-engines to minimize those effects is clear. Plane Simple Truth is a valuable book in the important debate over greenhouse gases and aviation's contribution to it.
Ben Rothke is the author of Computer Security: 20 Things Every Employee Should Know.
You can purchase Plane Simple Truth from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
The Peeters report flies in the face of reality, in which gains in jet engine efficiency over the last 40 years have been astounding. Contrast those gains with the popular Cadillac Escalade and similar SUV's whose mileage per gallon is often measured in single digits, and whose efficiencies have gone in the opposite direction.
The authors wrote Plane Simple Truth as they felt that never in recent history has an industry been so maligned and the public so misled by so much falsehood and distortion. With the Peeters report and climate activists pointing the accusing finger at the aviation industry, Plane Simple Truth is their defense.
The reality is that while the Detroit automakers were making huge gas guzzling SUV's well into 2008, companies such as Lockheed had fuel efficiency on their mind back to the 1970's. In fact, fuel efficiency has been a key factor in the aviation industry since the early days. This is based on simple economics and physics in that every pound of fuel, is a pound of payload that the airline cannot carry, which costs the airline money as fuel economy is a major driver in the industry. The bottom line is that fuel economy is absolutely critical in commercial aviation. Witness the number of aviation bankruptcies in 2008 when fuel prices soured.
Like a first-rate defense attorney, the book defends the industry against its charges. In every chapter, the authors show the errors, both intentional and those errors of omission, where incorrect reporting and research have negatively affected public opinion.
While not a book about the history of jet engines; the book details the fascinating and phenomenal improvement into the efficiency of the technology. But the underlying theme of the book is that of the environmental issues.
The book details the fundamental errors in the Peters and other environmental reports that have been often taken as the unquestionable truth. Rather than analyzing the facts like the book authors have done, the media often creates sensationalist headlines with an emphasis on short sound bites, often at the cost of scientific fact. Not only do the authors refute the Peeters report, they show in detail how important aviation is to the global economy. In fact, the aviation industry is critical to every growing economy.
The books 18 chapters cover the entire spectrum of jet emissions and their incredible development in detail. Current topics such as bio fuels and their promise, new engine technology, aerodynamic gains, green airlines and more are discussed. The book makes ample use of charts and photographs to illustrate its points.
Plane Simple Truth is a fascinating book that exposes the myriad errors of the flawed environmental studies. It is also a fascinating look at the development and history of jet engines, and the amazing progress that has come about in the last few decades. Huge strides have been made that increase power by significant amounts, while simultaneously cutting emissions. In fact, there are less environmental issues to worry about in the future due to aviation, given the significant strides that are being made.
The book makes many of its valuable points via the approach of letting charts and diagrams do the talking of often dry statistical facts. Be it fuel efficiency, less emissions, or toxic gases, the book shows that misplaced myths and the smoke and mirror games that are often used by those with an agenda, have negatively affected the public's view of aviation.
We have seen that a single bad piece of research is enough to derail an entire industry and mislead the press and politicians. Plane Simple Truthis an important book that has relevance to everyone, as there is no one that is not positively affected by the aviation industry.
While the industry still has a long way to go in other areas such as passenger satisfactions, lost luggage, air traffic control delays and much more, the engine makers have continually pushed the envelope in terms of fuel efficiency and environmental concerns, and they have done this for well over half a century. This was long before the environment was a cool topic. It was also done when jet fuel was still quite cheap.
While the book's authors are intimately involved in the airline industry and clearly pro-airline, and the book's publisher is Aerospace Technical Publications; the authors let the facts speak for themselves. While greenhouse gases and their potential negative effects are part of the public and scientific debate, the ability of modern jet-engines to minimize those effects is clear. Plane Simple Truth is a valuable book in the important debate over greenhouse gases and aviation's contribution to it.
Ben Rothke is the author of Computer Security: 20 Things Every Employee Should Know.
You can purchase Plane Simple Truth from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
Never underestimate the power of the placebo effect.
At the general public level, people are often misled by their lack of common sense, their deficiency in understanding statistics and basic science, and therefore fall victim to the lies of the myriad charlatans that claim to have something that fixes everything
Are you calling yourself a charlatan? You keep talking about SUVs when they have nothing whatever to do with engine efficiency.
In 1976 I bought a brand new four cylinder Chevy Vega. It was a power-poor dog with a small one barrel carburator. It was small and uncomfortable. The best mileage I measured with that car was 19 mpg.
When its fuel pump went out two years later, I bought a used 1974 Pontiac Le Mans; a big, roomy, comfortable car with a 350 cubic inch V-8 engine. Someone had milled the heads, put a four barrel carburator and a dual exhaust on it. It hauled ass when I stomped the accellerator, and as long as I kept the big back two barrells from opening I could get 19 mpg on the highway with its mandatory 55 MPH speed limit.
My current car is a Crysler Concorde with a fuel injected 28 valve V-6 engine. It's roomier and more comfortable than the Pontiac was, its braking and handling are better than any car I've owned, it's almost as fast as the Le Mans, but with its cruise control set at 55 MPH its fuel computer measures up to a 36 mpg average on a 100 mile trip. It uses little more than half the fuel of either the LeMans or the Vega. It has even better mileage than the tiny 1984 fuel injected four cylinder VW Rabbit I bought when Reagan was President.
I don't know how much more efficient plane engines are today, but automobiles are twice as efficient as they were in the '70s.
I daresay a new full sized Ford pickup truck gets better mileage than a 1975 full sized Ford of the same model.
Comparing apples to oranges is what you're doing, and it's disinginuous.
Free Martian Whores!
2 out of 4 people you meet on the street are likely to have below average intelligence.
Kind of like saying that a National Vehicle Tracking system would be primarily used for amber alerts?
There's a good book in here, one that's far more interesting to me than the subject matter of "Plane Simple Truth". Even the review appears to agree -- why else mention it?
Fuel is heavy. Every pound of fuel you burn is one less you can carry and charge for.
Of course it kind of goes south when you talk about people that take an airliner designed for 300 people and use it as a private jet.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I've never heard any accusations that the aeronautical industry was building particularly inefficient planes. Why would they? The only reason the automotive industry did it was because consumers love big cars (perceiving them as safer and wanting to show off). But unlike with SUV's, no one uses the size of the airplane they flew in on to compensate for their small dick (with the exception of Richard Branson, of course). So why WOULDN'T airlines want more efficient aircraft?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I guess while putting down the rest of America for being easily led by the nose, the author forgot to read about how to use simple punctuation.
While we're on it, perhaps Barnum was right, but perhaps he was more right in the second less-well-known part of his statement.
"There's a sucker born every minute -- and two to take him." -- P.T. Barnum.
Google 101 is over. The rest is left as an exercise for the reader.
Ehud
I'm always fascinated by how IT people frequently consider themselves experts on everything under the sun. Whoever this Rothke is, he's no aeronautical engineer, and as far as I can tell his snide remarks at the beginning of the review are based on his reading of an admittedly pro-aviation industry book.
Pop quiz: who is calling who a liar in this paragraph? For that matter, how many parties are being discussed here, and what are their positions on fuel efficiency?
--MarkusQ
Here all along I've been reducing people down to: Evil (liars) OR stupid. I never really thought of evil AND stupid....
Feel better now that you've had your daily smugasm, grammar nazi?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
You are correct about the airlines and incorrect about the SUV market. But that's okay.
Airlines want higher efficiency because like any GOOD corporation that wants to make A LOT of money they are meticulous in accounting.
I NOW own a BIG TRUCK and a tiny car. Why? I wasn't good at accounting. I studied my finances over a six month period and saw what I was paying in gas and found that I could have a BRAND NEW car - and save about $80 a month.
People who have giant SUVs are welcome to have them but they either know exactly how much they cost and are okay with it.
I can tell you that the whole "Green" movement is creating liars everywhere. There are 'green' checklists that can be completed without being 'green'. Green is the new 'low fat'. It has lost its meaning.
D~y
Please don't confuse general intelligence with rational analytic ability. Almost 60% of the US population are "certain" that the Christian god is something more than a work of fiction.
If you really want to confound the two issues, the human race must be approaching 100% moron. I for one instinctively know this to be true...
err...
you mean like the iq test is a bell curve? and half are below 100 and half are above?
this is a travesty, how are we ever going to make sure that everyone is above 100?
pfffffffffft
stupid people exist. deal with it. nothing you will ever do will change that
if you can't make peace with that fact, you cast some doubt on your supposed intelligence
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
No other mode of transportation has become cheaper than air flight. Nothing in the market can even come close. Even with the recent nickel-and-diming with the baggage and food charges to pass on fuel charges, air flight is now the mode of transport for the wretched masses that used to be confined to the bus.
Starting your review with a convoluted first paragraph chock-full of double negatives and irrelevant references is a Bad Idea. I had to read it three times before I figured out which book was being reviewed and what the reviewer thought of it.
The review also takes whatever this book says as gospel. How do we know that this book is any more correct than the studies it tries to debunk?
...if he'd get an editor, and write his article in grammatically correct Engilsh with appropriate punctuation.
It seems rather hypocritical to expound on the ignorance of others when one can't demonstrate the appropriate use of the apostrophe.
In the TV show House, M.D., a premise that protagonist Dr. Greg House holds dear is that people are liars and stupid. Real life is often not far from House's observation.
I would say that only a person smarter than average could make such observation. The rest would simply not care or be capable of thinking to such depth. In House's case, this is exactly it, because he seems to have an outstandingly high IQ. Amusingly, House says that we all lie, but he is the only exception. And he certainly doesn't think he's stupid.
Having said that, I've been working in the "med biz" for five years and I share House's philosophy. People always distort facts for one reason or another, and ultimately, that makes them look dumb.
Full Tilt
What I want to know is how much fuel does it take to travel from San Francisco to New York City by the following methods:
A modern plane
A Prius
A generic 6 cylinder sedan
An Escalade
Amtrak
Of course, the extra 4 days on the road really make me favor the plane, but I want to know how guilty I should feel.
I'm sorry you took it personally.
Ehud
So you are also a liar in that companies will lie to make money and produce false/misleadings documents like the airlines engine which you are supporting.
So does life mimic TV or TV mimic life?
Placebo supplements helped improve my memory! I can remember how gullible I was with crystal clarity!
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
This needs a wikipedia entry: "The Peeters Principle is the philosophical rule of thumb that "Incompetent research reports tend to rise to the top of public perception." An allusion to Dr. Laurence J. Peter's et. al. Peter Principle, the Peeters Principle derives from the P.M. Peeters et. al. report "Fuel efficiency of commercial aircraft: An overview of historical and future trends", which falsely claims declining fuel efficiency in airline turbine aircraft engines. The Peeters Principle in summary is that, at the general public level, people are often misled by their lack of common sense, their deficiency in understanding statistics and basic science, and therefore fall victim to the lies of the myriad charlatans that claim to have something that fixes everything."
Disregarding the carbon footprint/relative mileage issue, I've often thought that spraying unburnt kerosene into the upper atmosphere was a dodgy experiment.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
The same will be true for any Slashdotter who wants to explain to me in scientific terms why my neighbor was 'technically' correct.
Let me help: The wood? Hickory and Cherry. The temperature? 240deg. Time: 6hours.
So tell me; how many polar bears did I kill?
What a cheerleader! Is this really what the poor aviation industry has sunk to? If they spent a little more effort on avionics they wouldn't have to pimp such embarrassing crap....
From the review, there seems to be a lot of talk in the book about jet engines (turbofans). But is the subject of propellers and turbopropellers brought upon ? They are usually considered to be the most efficient for speeds around mach 0.6.
They also put lipstick on dogs...whats the point?
You mention the Cadillac Escalade as if fuel efficiency were the primary design criteria for that vehicle. Why should anyone read any further after that?
The signal to noise ratio in this story is astoundingly low.
How about:
Here's a review of "The Plane and Simple Truth."
It's a book about efficiency gains in airliners over the last 70 years.
I liked it.
It had lots of good information.
It also debunked many fallacies put forth by those who think the airline industry is bad for the environment.
"The Peeters report flies in the face of reality, in which gains in jet engine efficiency over the last 40 years have been astounding. Contrast those gains with the popular Cadillac Escalade and similar SUV's whose mileage per gallon is often measured in single digits, and whose efficiencies have gone in the opposite direction. "
Where can I get myself fuel efficiency information on a 1968 Cadillac Escalade?
Aircraft have one advantage only: speed. The simple physics of the matter is that an engine used to power an aircraft will never have the same fuel efficiency as putting the same damned engine in a car or a train or any other vehicle where much of the engine's power is put into supporting the weight of the vehicle.
So your turbines have shown increased efficiency over 40 years ago. That doesn't explain why it's better to put that turbine into an airplane rather than a locomotive.
For a start, they seem to hinge their conclusions on per-seat-kilometer values, and then seem surprised at the outcome - per-seat-kilometer values miss significant aspects of the subject at hand:
:)
1. Cargo - planes carry significant amounts of cargo today, on the piston engined aircraft of yesteryear it was pretty much 'passengers OR cargo, but not at the same time'. Thus the plane today is doing work that your plane of yesterday would be excluded from because you aren't getting a per-seat-kilometer value for it (no seats).
2. Range - planes today carry out some serious routes, with the top end of the scale actually topping out at between 8,000miles on a regular basis (there are longer routes, but they are less common). You won't be getting that in piston engined aircraft.
3. Reliability - jet engines are much more reliable than the piston engines of yesteryear, which is why we now have ETOPS (extended-range twin-engine operational performance standard) hitting 207 minutes. Thats three hours and twenty seven minutes distance from an airfield on one single engine. Try that in a piston engine aircraft of yesteryear.
4. Reliability - yes, its worth mentioning again. Jet engine aircraft can run sectors with minimal turn around, with minimal maintenance between sectors and with minimal top-ups of required fluids. Piston engined aircraft required a lot more in the way of coaxing and looking after on the ground between sectors. More time in maintenance means less time making money.
5. Longevity - there haven't been many piston engine aircraft that were built for two or three decades in passenger service (the DC-3 comes to mind, but not many others). Most piston engine passenger aircraft of the pre-war and immediate post-war period were designed to last only a few thousand hours, or a couple of years in passenger service.
Oh, and yes, I'm related to the aviation industry
My lack of common sense and overall knowledge is telling me that this review is absolutely 100% correct.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Fuel economy (MPG) on a modern land-yacht SUV is indeed atrocious.
However, fuel efficiency on a modern vehicle is simply astounding. A modern engine can extract far more motive power out of a given amount of fuel than an engine even ten years old.
The problem, as far as total consumption goes, is what the automakers have chosen to do with those efficiency gains. Instead of increasing fuel economy, they have chosen to increase the power of the engine, and put those engines in ever-heavier vehicles. This means that fuel economy has remained relatively static, even as efficiency has made huge strides.
SirWired
What this book and review does is look at the aircraft manufacturers. In reality, it is the airlines that specify aircraft and order equipment. The manufacturers simple design and build to meet customer specifications.
Yes, ducted fan jet engines are generally poor at efficiency versus, say, a turboprop jet engine. But airlines simply will not go for a turboprop, as a prop airplane makes customers less comfortable.
Of course, the military is not subject to such commercial nonsense, and that's why many of their aircraft are of a turboprop design.
So, is aircraft efficiency down over the past 50 years? Yes. Is it due to engine design? Yes. Is it due to the industry? Yes. Is it due to the manufacturers? No. It is due to the airlines' demands of a ducted fan.
Damn, book reviews in Slashdot are getting completely incomprehensible.
Hint: a review isn't a summary.
I don't believe the airline industry is as bad as the tobacco industry (the existence of this book notwithstanding). But that still doesn't mean that airline travel is something that we are going to have to analyze as the price of fossil fuels go up and the environment becomes less stable. NASA might build the most environmentally conscious rockets possible, but as long as they use fossil fuels they'll probably be harmful to the environment.
Whether you view the world through the prism of "we are running out of fossil fuel" or "the environment is destabilizing" (discounting those who think everything is fine), you have to admit that our transportation options are going to have to change and widen. We're especially going to need electric high speed train links between cities if we're going to have enough fossil fuels for trans-oceanic airline flights.
This review is still bogus though. They should be comparing diesel city buses to regional carrier aircraft, or high speed trains and aircraft. Comparing every person on a flight driving an SUV alone 1000 miles vs. taking a jumbo jet might get close to similar gas mileage, but it doesn't take into account that an airplane is mass transit.
And what is this doing on slashdot anyway? Does slashdot have some sort of fairness doctrine for global warming deniers?
1. There were studies on the airline industry
2. Those studies weren't perfect
3. Everyone is stupid and lies
2 out of 4 people? That's a startling and frightening statistic. However, it's not very useful due to the low sample number (4).
Now HERE's a shocker that will make you check your home for DHMO leaks: 99.4% of the American population have more than the average number of limbs. What a nation of freaks!
... half dozen of the other.
Infuriate left and right
Isn't this an obvious straw man? Why compare a commercial aircraft to SUVs, the least efficient vehicles on the road? Even worse, one of the worst offenders is cited, instead of equally advanced technology like the hybrid Tahoe that carries eight passengers and gets at least 25 MPG. Also, the assertion that SUV fuel economy has gone "in the opposite direction" seems absurd; while more models of large SUVs are available now than in the 80s, an SUV that's equivalent in size to a 1985 Blazer now gets better fuel mileage even though it has more horsepower and better towing capacity.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Intelligent, rational, and logical people are fed up with the whole process. If they vote at all, it's on the basis of 'lesser of two evils'.
Not a typewriter
Excuse me, but I just actually read that report (...on slashdot!? I must be new here), and it nowhere states that jet engine efficiency *hasn't* improved tremendously over the past 40 years. On the contrary, it shows clear diagrams that shows they *have* improved a lot.
However, it states, probably correctly, that compared to the last-generation *piston* aircraft engines which where built around 1955 or so, first-generation Jet engines used twice as much fuel (per passenger or kg moved per kilometer) compared to those. However, that amount of fuel since halved so they are now about on par with 1955 piston technology. Doesn't look like a lie to me. Of course, modern jet engines can fly a lot faster than those with piston engines.
In addition, it states that the amount of reduction will level off when the technology has matured. This happened for piston engines, and I don't see why it wouldn't for jet engines; most things to improve their efficiency by a lot have already been invented by now. This explains why they use much less fuel than 40 years ago, but doesn't guarantee in any way that they can get a lot more efficient still.
Of course, I like taking a plane to the Hawaiian beaches as much as the next guy, but I don't see why we need to post this kind of bullshit stories just so we can fool ourselves into thinking that planes do not use a lot of fuel.
Every expression is true, for a given value of 'true'
A round-trip UK to Australia causes about 7 tonnes of Carbon Dioxide equivalent.
The 60% cut in UK carbon emissions, mooted by the UK government, would give us a ration of about 4 tonnes a year each.
Our eco-flight:
We'll fly you over burning forests
We'll walk you through the starving hoardes
We'll show you drowned and bloated corpses
At a price you can afford
You'll fly above the clouds in comfort
You'll sleep your nights in quiet hotels
You'll sit and watch our views in wonder
Of mankind in a thousand hells
Environmentally friendly is always relative to your other options.
- How much fuel/emissions are required to transport a ton of cargo/passengers 1000 miles within the country via jet aircraft?
- How much fuel/emissions are required to do the same thing via high-speed rail?
I think commercial flight has its place in very long or transcontinental transportation, but in the US it's not the most environmentally friendly option for how it's typically getting used.
That's probably a good thing, because the active ingredient in the treatment is intentionally harmful.
The whole idea of homeopathy is that when people are ill, you give them a highly diluted substance that, when administered to a healthy person, would cause symptoms similar to their illness. Apparently because they already have those symptoms the substance somehow cures them instead of worsening their symptoms*. So higher dilution volumes are probably the right choice if you're actually going to practice homeopathic treatments.
*Some belief in magic is required for this effect.
If they're so stupid that they're doing eighty, can't tell that the car ahead is going slower and aren't paying attention to boot, it's not ME wasting the fuel.
I'm not going to waste my gasoline to save yours, especially when you obviously don't give a shit about your fuel economy or you'd be going slower.
Free Martian Whores!
stupid people exist. deal with it. nothing you will ever do will change that
It's one thing for "stupid" people to exist. It's quite another to deliberately take advantage of them by systematically misleading them on scientific issues they are incapable of checking on for themselves in order to warp public policy and swing elections.
One is unfortunate. The other is evil.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
... air flight is now the mode of transport for the wretched masses that used to be confined to the bus.
Unless they're on the no-fly list. Or look middle-eastern. Or are carrying nontrivial amounts of cash. Or don't want the continual hassle and abrogation of basic human rights that takes place in airports as a cost of admission to the plane.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Irrelevant. Your contribution to the decrease in polar bear population is insignificant compared to Sarah Palinâ(TM)s efforts on this.
Intelligent, rational, and logical people support McCain / Palin.
I'm sorry, are you arguing for the party that has increased government spending and the size of government at twice the rate of the Democrats since the end of WWII, when you adjust for inflation(and far more if you don't)?
The same party that has also increased the accumulation of debt at 2.4 times the inflation adjusted rate of the democrats?
Intelligent, rational, logical people can only support 4 more years of Republican rule if they support increased government, increased spending, and shunting that cost to our children -- effectively stealing from them.
In a purely logical world of self-interest, it's entirely logical that taking a billion dollars every day from our children is perfectly logical. The more we can steal from them, the more we have for ourselves.
Of course, I think this is what this slashdot article really reaches to the heart to. If people knew math and economics, they'd be able to see for themselves that the Republicans are just Democrats who spend more money and happen to hate immigrants and gays.
It's a shameful day for the Republican party when people advocate voting Democrat because it means smaller government, less spending, balanced budgets, and greater liberty. The numbers don't like, however. If you love liberty, hate large government, want lower spending, balanced budgets, you vote Democrat as an empirical matter of fact.
It's been a long time.
well, I heard it on the radio so it must be true.
Bob agrees with you... at least, I think he does. Of course, Bob's on crack.
Free Martian Whores!
With a lot of information coming at us from all directions, there are a number of people taking in information at face value.
Case in point, Greenspan couldn't be wrong. He couldn't be leading to a path of bubble collapse. But the minority of naysayers went unheeded. As we plunged into another economy of value without substance. And we can't even blame this on poor history education in schools. The lesson was only 8 years old.
We went into Iraq, lesson there was 35 years old. If you exclude Somalia, and some other incidents.
I have recently seen papers and research presented in political committee meeting without sighting references. When I asked about this practice, they just shrugged and said this was the way it had always been done. I just couldn't believe it.
I recently saw a presentation within my own company where they presented data for optimization of production. I started looking at the data and wondering why certain data was missing. When I asked they just said they hadn't measured it, they only took the data which was non-conforming and projected a wopping 30% increase in yield. Everyone including a bunch of PhD's took this as gospel truth layed before them.
Frankly I don't get it. How people can't discern between a sales pitch and scientific information. And to be honest I'm getting tired of trying to fight a continuous battle with people who want to talk me into something without giving me solid information. I basically have resorted to a tactic which they find quite rude, some say it is very rude, "Don't talk to me until you have some factual information or information with basis.". It has resulted in a number of complaints.
He who said 1,000,000 monkeys on 1,000,000 typewriters would eventually type the great novel, never saw an AOL chat room
Like a first-rate defense attorney, the book defends the industry against its charges... is there a glove small enough to not fit an airplane NOR O.J?
soylentnews.org Go there to enjoy the people!
Back in my college days I kept running into these rather large numbers... I like to call them "fat twos" so that for all practical purposes 2 + 2 ~= 5
My math instructors didn't really appreciate this. They got even more upset when I asked them how big or to quantify the size of a point on a graph. The old paradox that given a distance which you repeatedly travel half the distance, you will never cross the entire distance, but just get infinitely closer. But when I travel a distance, once the size of my "point", being the size of my foot (US Mens 12), I tend to reach my destination. But maybe my point, and my foot, is just "Extra big".
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
have existed for centuries
3 centuries from now, your cerebral ipv8 interface will deliver you ads for enzyte ver 9.0: increase your penis size through multidimensional fractalization
sure, when you catch these charlatans, punish them
but as long as you respect free will, you are going to have to make peace with the fact that someone somewhere will be victimized by their own ignorance
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Some belief in magic is required for this effect
No, actually the theory is that somehow water has a memory (and memory is chemical so maybe it could). Even though there's no possibility of poison left in the water, the water remembers, and somehow communicates this to your body (which, as the silicone being in the STNG observes, is an "ugly bag of mostly water").
Your body's defeces are then summoned to fight the poison that has made it sick.
However, it is a testable theory and has been tested in double-blind experiments. The conclusion? Homeopathy is worthless bunk that is no more effective than placebo.
Free Martian Whores!
i donÂt doubt for a moment that the airplane industry is way more concerned about fuel efficiency than the car industry.
selling suvs to people who donÂt care what the price of gas is, is something completely different than selling an airplane to an airline where gas consumption cuts directly into that airlines bottom line.
in the airplane industry gas consumption is actually a deciding factor for the buyer, while for luxury cars or suvs (at least for now) it is not.
The Peeters report says that we can expect an
increase in aircraft efficiency of 20-28% in the
next 30 years, based on the assumption that the
improvements follow the regression curve that
applies to most fields of technology.
The report mentions the great improvements in
speed and operation costs over piston engines.
It does not go into details about fuel efficiency
per actually transported passenger or unit of
goods, since this is beside the point of the
report.
I fail to see any way in which the report can be
said to paint the aircraft industry in a negative
light. It simply says that jet aircrafts have
developed at pace X in the past, and based on
this information we expect them to develop at
pace Y in the future. The comparison with piston
engines give a reference showing that there are
laws of nature that limit how fuel efficient a
heavier-than-air flying machine can be.
My understanding was the Environmental concerns over Air Travel was centered on the fact that the typical flight will burn a LOT of fuel because the distance is so large. Its more fuel efficient then taking the same trip in a Car but that not the point, your emitting CO2 to travel some ware and you could 'probably' have avoided it for example by vacationing nearer to your home. The speed and convenience of Air Travel thus encourages more CO2 release in any given traveling/vacationing event.
Known as the Peeters report, after lead author P.M. Peeters, the authors of Plane Simple Truth...
It took me three tries to figure out what this sentence was saying. The authors of Plane Simple Truth are known as the Peeters report?
These must be some pretty *BIG* three guys, right?
Unless you were smoking polar bear ribs, you actually caused a good effect on their population. The most likely alternative to using carbon-neutral wood would be to cook with a fossil fuel, such as natural gas or an LPG like butane or propane.
But, of course, you could have broiled the ribs in a solar oven instead of smoking them, which would have been even better...
Experience - I used to work for Rolls Royce plc (the aero engine divison of Rolls Royce).
......used to. Let me guess, you switched to business management? Additionally, just because you worked for the company, doesn't mean it counts as "experience". After all, I'm sure they employ a large number of janitorial staff. Your design and performance data to support your "argument" seem to be accurate, however they further illustrate the point that selection of an engine is based on more than sheer performance, but a number of factors including safety (turbofan vs turboprop). So....two conclusions. 1)Piston engines are not useless and outdated, otherwise NO plane(regardless of size) would be produced using them. 2)The article is mainly about efficiency, and we need to stop cloaking other design criteria as efficiency criteria for the industry.....
"Contrast those gains with the popular Cadillac Escalade and similar SUV's whose mileage per gallon is often measured in single digits, and whose efficiencies have gone in the opposite direction.
"
I can get an SUV the gets 30 MPG highway, try doing that even 10 years age.
And stop comparing it to the auto industry. There different and people want dofferent things. Believe me, if their customers wanted a bloated non aerodynamic plane for looks, they would ahve built them.
Until a couple of years OK SUVs were selling like hotcakes, so of course they were building them, they would be foolish not to. The American Auto industry have tried very efficient and high mileage cars many time, but sales weren't that great.
Now Chevy has more fuel efficient cars then any other auto manufacturer in the world.
For under 11K I can get a 5 door that gets 35+MPG.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You can get an SUV that gets near 30 MPG.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
If I hear one more person whining about how they think they got screwed by some mortgage lender I'll puke. It's called and ADJUSTABLE Rate Mortgage for a reason. If you're losing your overpriced home because you could never have afforded it on a normal mortgage I have zero sympathy for you. It's your responsibility to read and understand the document from cover to cover and know that your rate could increase well above what you could afford. You also need to know that if you lose your job and can't pay for the house, it's not yours anymore. And if you thought your house value would just keep going up and up like a late 90s dot-com stock don't come crying to me. That's just tough noogies.
There's efficiency and there's economy. Two different concepts. Engine efficiency has improved, but they then use those gains to make smaller, cheaper engines that run at higher speeds and/or require turbochargers, which are then tuned to provide more power vs. fuel economy, saddled with emission control devices, and then placed into larger, heavier vehicles to boot.
Net effect? Fuel economy has decreased on average, despite gains in engine efficiency.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
The reason why jet engines can only approach the efficiency of piston engines is because piston engines have such high compression ratios. Instead of the 10 or 12 to 1, a particularly efficient turbofan might get 4 to 1. The thermal efficiency just isn't there. Build and patent a 12 or 10 to 1 compression ratio turbofan, and you could retire.
And we haven't even discussed diesels, which can push 20 to 1 compression ratios.
One mitigating factor is that jet engines allow aircraft to fly faster, spreading the inordinately large fuel consumption over a greater distance. The other is that piston engines are considerably heavier than turbofans of equivalent power, and weight increases fuel consumption (which can, again, be mitigated by traveling faster).
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
In order to obtain hydrogen from water we need an electric current.
It is possible to use that hydrogen to ignite (with oxygen in the air) by using a bolt.
If that happens inside the place turbines, the thrust should be the same as with gasoline.
Also the speed of the jet engines can be used to extract electricity, the electricity needed to extract hydrogen from water.
Therefore the plane wings could be filled with water, planes could go everywhere a lot cheaper (imagine paying a 10th of what you pay now on flight tickets) and also there would be no pollution...
If the prescriber doesn't believe in the prescription, it's snake-oil.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
Epic fail
Sorry about the redundancy. Shoulda clicked "More"...
>>>Intelligent, rational, and logical people support McCain / Palin. No, Intelligent, rational, and logical people give reasons. those who cant think for themselves vote McCain / Palin.
SUV's are ineffeicient, no matter which way you slice it.
and your point was?
I had a client recently want to know how to measure the amount of carbon their computers and network were producing. After allot of clarification, I finally realized that the client actually believed that the computer equipment itself produced carbon as if the computer had a combustible engine and burned fossil fuels.
Stupidity? or Misinformation?
From another perspective, that's about a barrel of fuel per minute while cruising a bit over nine miles per minute. Your mileage may vary, especially at take-off power...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Not to mention the horrible grammar inside his article:
http://www.brighthub.com/computing/enterprise-security/articles/868.aspx
"But until consumers starting taking responsibility for their problems, [...]"
"[..]traditionally spend large amount of money[...]"
I didn't bother looking for more because I can't bring myself to reread that article.
Good points, Ben, but we'd take you more seriously if you actually bothered to use some form of spell-check in your articles.
At the general public level, people are often misled by their lack of common sense, their deficiency in understanding statistics and basic science, and therefore fall victim to the lies of the myriad charlatans that claim to have something that fixes everything.
...why so many are gonna vote for "salt-'n-pepper" in the coming election.
"It's time to take life by the cans." ~ Bender ("Bendin' in the Wind", ep. 3-13)
"There's a sucker born every minute -- and two to take him." -- P.T. Barnum.
According to P.T. Barnum, P.T. Barnum never said that.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Efficiency and Economy are not the same thing.
SUV's are uneconomical. (As in, getting the vehicle from point A to point B requires a lot of gas.)
However, they are actually quite efficient. (As in, for the size, weight, and power of the vehicle, they burn very little gas, compared with an older engine.)
The original reviewer was talking about the great strides in efficiency made by planes and implied that cars have not done the same. This is not true.
A modern fighter jet making a transatlantic crossing is far less economical than the Spirit of St. Louis, but is far more efficient of an aircraft.
Same thing with cars. A modern 'Vette gets piss-poor economy compared with a mid-80's Geo Metro, but it is far more efficient.
SirWired
assume that the car is 100% loaded.
Five people in a car at 40mpg means 200mpg per passenger.
One important consideration that fuel burn analysis of 1950's vintage piston aircraft and modern turbofans is that they don't fulfill the all the same needs. We could with modern technology build build a craft to get passengers from NY to LA in some fraction of the fuel a 757 or A320 would burn. But suppose you spend 20 hours in the air with 2 refueling stops versus 5 hours in the air non-stop. I don't think you would fill the seats with the slow option.
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
This was the field of study for my degree. There is so much I could say on this that is relevant.
Nope, that would just be wrong.
I'm going to other threads where I know nothing and going to use my expertise there.
ok, thanks for the clarificaiton. but the bottom line is that we are way too dependant on foreign oil, and Detroit needs to follow the lead of GE aircraft engines and get BOTH efficiency and better ecomnimcs.
Thank you for using the grammatically-correct "affected" instead of the incorrect "impacted."
The stupid neighbor was taken aback by how much smoke is actually generated through this process, where from a distance, it can appear as though one's house is on fire. Neighbor comes out back, sees the smoke, does not apparently notice the wonderful aroma. Me, cigar in mouth, scotch in hand, looking as much the redneck as is possible in California, in an inebriated hog-heaven, was in no mood to explain the science of real BBQ to that loafer-wearing pussy.
I suspect that Polar Bear would taste great too, but if you are someone who has never had REAL BBQ, the slow smoked kind, run down to Home Depot and buy a Smoker, especially if you want to piss off a neighbor!
You're the most beautiful girl on the street,
you're definitely in the top three...
depending on the street.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
http://preview.tinyurl.com/WikiAnswer-Swallow
This serious question, phrased in a humorous manner, has gone unaddressed for many months on WikiAnswers.
I'd like the Slashdot crowd's input, especially if you've got experience in aeronautics.
Discuss it here or on WikiAnswers - I don't care, but somebody _please_ say something constructive on the subject.
Regards, KK.
how big is Richard Branson's dick?
Thats the way to do it,instead of serious discussion,just mod down someone you don't agree with.Typical Republicrat move.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Cheers!
I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.