And when the Big Three gave up on diesels, VW kept on plugging along and learning from their mistakes.
Today, Ford is bringing out a very small diesel of their own, while VW has the experience of building diesels since 197x. The early ones may have been crappy, but everybody's early ________ is crappy. Go test drive a brand-new VW Jetta diesel today, and see if it's exactly the same as your Dasher. Somehow, I doubt it.
Exactly. It is precisely why you can't find diesel Cadillacs and GM diesel pickups from the 80's: they were poorly engineered, and did not have the longevity normally attributed to diesel engines. They were all relegated to the scrap heap 15 years ago.
Did you run the earlier 4-speed in your Ford with the 6.9L, or the later ZF 5-speed? I'm trying to remember if the 6.9L was available late enough to have the 5-speed, or if Ford went to the 7.3L by then.
High gas prices aren't doing anything to stop most of these people, either.
It must've been some other reason that caused you shorten your commute that much - different job, different house, time for a change of living area, etc. Most people right now can't move into the metro even if they wanted to, because they can't sell the house they've got in St. Cloud or Northfield or Chaska with the way the market is. Some won't since they moved/live out there for a reason, to get away from the crowded confines of the Cities. (And it makes them that much closer to the cabin, and I won't even get into the amount of traffic on Friday in the summer.)
Two years ago I was commuting from St. Cloud to Anoka in a truck that got 13 MPG, but gas was well under $3 per gallon. Due to "reasons other than mileage," I sold the truck and moved to an first tier suburb, and I'd appreciate the extra gas money I'm saving... if the rent and the gas weren't that much higher.
That's partly because in the past, everyone has just mated an already-existing diesel engine and a generator, or an already-existing gas engine and a generator, and called it good. It's cheaper that way. Both gasoline and diesel engines are engineered to make good power at 1000 RPM and 3500 RPM because you need the horsepower and torque curves to allow you to accelerate. This wide band means it can't be efficient at any particular RPM.
If someone had the brains to grind a cam and tune the injectors to where the diesel could run very efficiently at ONE RPM, say 1800 RPM, and matched it to a generator, and separated the load (motor driving the wheels) with a buffer (batteries), then yeah, you could get a very efficient diesel-electric series hybrid.
Locomotives don't do this because the size of the battery stack would be huge. And locomotives need to move hundreds of thousands of tons of mass, not one ton of mass.
If I hadn't already commented in this thread, you'd be getting some mod points. Best stuff I've read in this topic yet.
This is one of the reasons Caterpillar is getting out of the diesel engine market. They know they can't meet the EPA regulations for Ultra-Low Sulfur emissions slated for 2009 in the industrial engine sector, and won't waste their time and money trying.
As I've stated, my car has 280 freakin' ft./lb of torque
And where in the RPM band is this? I bet if your car has a tach and a manual transmission, if you put it in a high gear (say, 3rd in a 5 speed) at a low RPM (say, 1500) and floor it, your car will just dog down until it reaches an RPM where the torque and horsepower curves are higher, say, 4500 RPM. At that point it will accelerate much faster.
In a diesel, the engine's all done by 4000 RPM. You can't really get them to spin much faster and make torque efficiently because the fuel burns too slowly. Turbochargers work on the premise of large amounts of hot air exiting the engine to bring more air into the engine, and diesels burn hotter than gasoline engines, which by atmospheric principles means more airflow.
So, at the same RPM, same displacement, same size turbocharger impellers, diesels make more torque than an equivalent gasoline engine, below 3500 RPM.
Actually, GM and Ford had diesel engines in some of their cars and trucks in the late 70's and early 80's, except many GM models such as Cadillac and some Chevrolet and GMC pickups were very poorly engineered (basically, they took their popular 5.7L gas engine, tweaked it, and put some diesel injectors in it).
Ford bought their diesels from Navistar who had much more experience in building these types of engines, put them in their heavy pickups, and only in the past 4-5 years did Ford start building their own diesel engines.
As far as Volkswagen, they've been continuously producing models with diesels since the 80's. I don't think there was a single year of VW production that you couldn't get a diesel in one of their models after that. Of all the automotive companies who've dabbled with diesels, Volkswagen has the most experience, no doubt about it.
The public is just becoming aware of them because they're starting to open their eyes and ask their dealers for the option.
No shit. Must've been a yuppie bar or someplace that only serves $24 martinis. Try to get a Coors in there... "I'm sorry sir, we only have Heineken and Amstel Light..."
Over 150 people put the entire NEC together, and are in continuous committee meetings revising and updating it. Each takes one little piece of it, for instance, there might be one guy that heads up approvals for outer jacket coverings on service entrance cable. He won't know anything about acceptance of knob and tube in existing structures. Or maybe he would.
So, if you want to get 150 Ph.D.'s together to wire a house, then yeah. Otherwise it's up to the average electrician to keep up on the specifics, which is why they publish the NEC.
It also explains why there are specializations - residential and commercial electricians (and linemen), because the rules for Romex in wood-framed walls are different than the rules for EMT or rigid pipe in concrete block (which are different than the rules for voltages exceeding 600 volts).
(which most people can see coming a mile away anyhow, owing to the fact that they passed a science class at some point).
Personally, most people I know barely passed a science class, and they think that show rocks. I can't really stand it for the same reasons you list - half the time they don't run all possible scenarios, or don't accurately replicate the dynamics in the experiments. It's just "sciencey" enough for your average couch potato. I think if they quit using explosives half the time, they'd lose half their audience as well.
Compassion is all fine and dandy, but where I live in Minnesota, we have a thing called pride.
Pride means that even though your financial situation is horrible, it's your own fault, and it's up to you to fix it. To "go on welfare" is to be highly judged by friends and family, who look at welfare as a support for only those who truly need it. There are plenty of people who abuse the welfare system, and it's this reason that welfare is looked down upon in this state.
It's true that there are those worse off than I (and I'm basically broke and in $6K of debt) but if the welfare system cannot distinguish between a single mom with a sick kid, and a single mom who adopts 2 kids a year for the next 5 years, then the system is broken, and I won't support it until it can. I'd rather hand out money personally than give it to the welfare system via taxes.
The bigger problem is how to create a system that lets the truly poor in, and keeps the riff-raff out.
You may be uninformed, but I'm sure you've got some common sense to substitute.
Animals are a lot smarter than we give them credit for. Birds get up and out of the way for cars and trains, and I know you've seen it, and I've seen people who have difficulty grasping the concept.
Those are moving objects, to boot. Most can't compete with airplanes because of the speed and 3 dimensional aiming, but you don't see bird spatters covering a jet pulling up to the airport gate.
If a wind generator stays in one fixed location and causes pressure differences in the air(i.e. low frequency sound waves, e.g. a "whoosh" noise), chances are birds and bats will stay clear of it. The ones that don't can be nominated for the birdie Darwin awards, and a smarter species will evolve.
Very interesting. I tried to research that some more.
Specifically where DAMM gets their magical.127% number. Via a query of FARS, the statistics portion of NHTSA, I found that apparently the NTHSA only looks at dead people, and doesn't take into account alive people, nor who was at fault, when trying to break apart alcohol-related accidents. You can break down alcohol-related fatalities by state and BAC, but not fault.
Much as I'd like to believe it, it looks like hype to me.
That's like $40,000 worth of engineering in your post. Perhaps you should think about selling your services...? I hear there's more openings for that sort of work lately...
Film over 50 years old probably isn't color anyways. Kodachrome only came out in the mid-30's, and didn't really get popular until the late 40's. And I dunno about how terrible it is, I've personally watched 16mm films color films from the mid-40's (construction equipment promotional films from Allis-Chalmers) and they're great, I'd say almost perfect, straight from the reel on a Bell Howell projector. They haven't been run to death like theater film would have been, but they've only been stored in their can at room temperature, not a special freezer.
I agree that if the film wasn't archived properly, i.e. it got too hot or was left in a sunny room with no can, then yeah, it will degrade, and it's difficult to watch.
Actually, zoning laws don't necessarily come into play in the storage of explosives. Depending on the class of explosive you're licensed to carry, you're required by that license to have a bunker that meets guidelines to store those explosives, specifically to prevent chain reactions to other bunkers and surrounding areas, including people, but the BATF can't say much if it's your own property.
WARNING: Doing any of this is extremely STUPID and UNSAFE, without proper training and safety equipment. DO NOT TRY IT EVER.
I hope that was just a generic disclaimer.
How was it done back in the day, again? What did the chemists of the Industrial Revolution have to work with? How did they determine hydrogen was released? By trying it?
The degree of safety involved is a direct correlation to the amount of respect and forethought given to the project, and that's true of any experiment. If someone wants to be protected at all times, then they shouldn't get out of bed in the morning, and even that isn't a 100% guarantee of safety.
Slashdot Mirror
And when the Big Three gave up on diesels, VW kept on plugging along and learning from their mistakes.
Today, Ford is bringing out a very small diesel of their own, while VW has the experience of building diesels since 197x. The early ones may have been crappy, but everybody's early ________ is crappy. Go test drive a brand-new VW Jetta diesel today, and see if it's exactly the same as your Dasher. Somehow, I doubt it.
Exactly. It is precisely why you can't find diesel Cadillacs and GM diesel pickups from the 80's: they were poorly engineered, and did not have the longevity normally attributed to diesel engines. They were all relegated to the scrap heap 15 years ago.
Did you run the earlier 4-speed in your Ford with the 6.9L, or the later ZF 5-speed? I'm trying to remember if the 6.9L was available late enough to have the 5-speed, or if Ford went to the 7.3L by then.
High gas prices aren't doing anything to stop most of these people, either.
It must've been some other reason that caused you shorten your commute that much - different job, different house, time for a change of living area, etc. Most people right now can't move into the metro even if they wanted to, because they can't sell the house they've got in St. Cloud or Northfield or Chaska with the way the market is. Some won't since they moved/live out there for a reason, to get away from the crowded confines of the Cities. (And it makes them that much closer to the cabin, and I won't even get into the amount of traffic on Friday in the summer.)
Two years ago I was commuting from St. Cloud to Anoka in a truck that got 13 MPG, but gas was well under $3 per gallon. Due to "reasons other than mileage," I sold the truck and moved to an first tier suburb, and I'd appreciate the extra gas money I'm saving... if the rent and the gas weren't that much higher.
That's partly because in the past, everyone has just mated an already-existing diesel engine and a generator, or an already-existing gas engine and a generator, and called it good. It's cheaper that way. Both gasoline and diesel engines are engineered to make good power at 1000 RPM and 3500 RPM because you need the horsepower and torque curves to allow you to accelerate. This wide band means it can't be efficient at any particular RPM.
If someone had the brains to grind a cam and tune the injectors to where the diesel could run very efficiently at ONE RPM, say 1800 RPM, and matched it to a generator, and separated the load (motor driving the wheels) with a buffer (batteries), then yeah, you could get a very efficient diesel-electric series hybrid.
Locomotives don't do this because the size of the battery stack would be huge. And locomotives need to move hundreds of thousands of tons of mass, not one ton of mass.
If I hadn't already commented in this thread, you'd be getting some mod points. Best stuff I've read in this topic yet.
This is one of the reasons Caterpillar is getting out of the diesel engine market. They know they can't meet the EPA regulations for Ultra-Low Sulfur emissions slated for 2009 in the industrial engine sector, and won't waste their time and money trying.
As I've stated, my car has 280 freakin' ft./lb of torque
And where in the RPM band is this? I bet if your car has a tach and a manual transmission, if you put it in a high gear (say, 3rd in a 5 speed) at a low RPM (say, 1500) and floor it, your car will just dog down until it reaches an RPM where the torque and horsepower curves are higher, say, 4500 RPM. At that point it will accelerate much faster.
In a diesel, the engine's all done by 4000 RPM. You can't really get them to spin much faster and make torque efficiently because the fuel burns too slowly. Turbochargers work on the premise of large amounts of hot air exiting the engine to bring more air into the engine, and diesels burn hotter than gasoline engines, which by atmospheric principles means more airflow.
So, at the same RPM, same displacement, same size turbocharger impellers, diesels make more torque than an equivalent gasoline engine, below 3500 RPM.
Actually, GM and Ford had diesel engines in some of their cars and trucks in the late 70's and early 80's, except many GM models such as Cadillac and some Chevrolet and GMC pickups were very poorly engineered (basically, they took their popular 5.7L gas engine, tweaked it, and put some diesel injectors in it).
Ford bought their diesels from Navistar who had much more experience in building these types of engines, put them in their heavy pickups, and only in the past 4-5 years did Ford start building their own diesel engines.
As far as Volkswagen, they've been continuously producing models with diesels since the 80's. I don't think there was a single year of VW production that you couldn't get a diesel in one of their models after that. Of all the automotive companies who've dabbled with diesels, Volkswagen has the most experience, no doubt about it.
The public is just becoming aware of them because they're starting to open their eyes and ask their dealers for the option.
If the pr0n looks like ET then I'm gonna pass.
out.
from my auto-erotic asphyxiation.
If she's doing the sucking, my tool and her event horizon are gonna do some experiments... Oh Yeah, giggidy giggidy!
No shit. Must've been a yuppie bar or someplace that only serves $24 martinis. Try to get a Coors in there... "I'm sorry sir, we only have Heineken and Amstel Light..."
If he wanted to work that hard for less pay than the Mexican, he'd have the job right now, union or no union.
Over 150 people put the entire NEC together, and are in continuous committee meetings revising and updating it. Each takes one little piece of it, for instance, there might be one guy that heads up approvals for outer jacket coverings on service entrance cable. He won't know anything about acceptance of knob and tube in existing structures. Or maybe he would.
So, if you want to get 150 Ph.D.'s together to wire a house, then yeah. Otherwise it's up to the average electrician to keep up on the specifics, which is why they publish the NEC.
It also explains why there are specializations - residential and commercial electricians (and linemen), because the rules for Romex in wood-framed walls are different than the rules for EMT or rigid pipe in concrete block (which are different than the rules for voltages exceeding 600 volts).
(which most people can see coming a mile away anyhow, owing to the fact that they passed a science class at some point).
Personally, most people I know barely passed a science class, and they think that show rocks. I can't really stand it for the same reasons you list - half the time they don't run all possible scenarios, or don't accurately replicate the dynamics in the experiments. It's just "sciencey" enough for your average couch potato. I think if they quit using explosives half the time, they'd lose half their audience as well.
Mod Up. Best post I've read all night.
Compassion is all fine and dandy, but where I live in Minnesota, we have a thing called pride.
Pride means that even though your financial situation is horrible, it's your own fault, and it's up to you to fix it. To "go on welfare" is to be highly judged by friends and family, who look at welfare as a support for only those who truly need it. There are plenty of people who abuse the welfare system, and it's this reason that welfare is looked down upon in this state.
It's true that there are those worse off than I (and I'm basically broke and in $6K of debt) but if the welfare system cannot distinguish between a single mom with a sick kid, and a single mom who adopts 2 kids a year for the next 5 years, then the system is broken, and I won't support it until it can. I'd rather hand out money personally than give it to the welfare system via taxes.
The bigger problem is how to create a system that lets the truly poor in, and keeps the riff-raff out.
And let's keep it that way, I'd like to have somewhere to go when I want to escape Amerika.
You may be uninformed, but I'm sure you've got some common sense to substitute.
Animals are a lot smarter than we give them credit for. Birds get up and out of the way for cars and trains, and I know you've seen it, and I've seen people who have difficulty grasping the concept.
Those are moving objects, to boot. Most can't compete with airplanes because of the speed and 3 dimensional aiming, but you don't see bird spatters covering a jet pulling up to the airport gate.
If a wind generator stays in one fixed location and causes pressure differences in the air(i.e. low frequency sound waves, e.g. a "whoosh" noise), chances are birds and bats will stay clear of it. The ones that don't can be nominated for the birdie Darwin awards, and a smarter species will evolve.
Very interesting. I tried to research that some more.
.127% number. Via a query of FARS, the statistics portion of NHTSA, I found that apparently the NTHSA only looks at dead people, and doesn't take into account alive people, nor who was at fault, when trying to break apart alcohol-related accidents. You can break down alcohol-related fatalities by state and BAC, but not fault.
Specifically where DAMM gets their magical
Much as I'd like to believe it, it looks like hype to me.
Well, geeze dude, don't hold out on us! Where can we find them? Staples? There aren't any here in the basement, I've looked.
That's like $40,000 worth of engineering in your post. Perhaps you should think about selling your services...? I hear there's more openings for that sort of work lately...
Film over 50 years old probably isn't color anyways. Kodachrome only came out in the mid-30's, and didn't really get popular until the late 40's. And I dunno about how terrible it is, I've personally watched 16mm films color films from the mid-40's (construction equipment promotional films from Allis-Chalmers) and they're great, I'd say almost perfect, straight from the reel on a Bell Howell projector. They haven't been run to death like theater film would have been, but they've only been stored in their can at room temperature, not a special freezer.
I agree that if the film wasn't archived properly, i.e. it got too hot or was left in a sunny room with no can, then yeah, it will degrade, and it's difficult to watch.
Mod Up. Old Victrolas only play at 78 RPM, but some had a speed adjustment IIRC. I think you can still get cactus needles from Antique Electronic Supply in Tempe, Arizona.
Actually, zoning laws don't necessarily come into play in the storage of explosives. Depending on the class of explosive you're licensed to carry, you're required by that license to have a bunker that meets guidelines to store those explosives, specifically to prevent chain reactions to other bunkers and surrounding areas, including people, but the BATF can't say much if it's your own property.
Here's the BATF laws and regulations regarding explosives: http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/exlawreg/fullvers.pdf
WARNING: Doing any of this is extremely STUPID and UNSAFE, without proper training and safety equipment. DO NOT TRY IT EVER.
I hope that was just a generic disclaimer.
How was it done back in the day, again? What did the chemists of the Industrial Revolution have to work with? How did they determine hydrogen was released? By trying it?
The degree of safety involved is a direct correlation to the amount of respect and forethought given to the project, and that's true of any experiment. If someone wants to be protected at all times, then they shouldn't get out of bed in the morning, and even that isn't a 100% guarantee of safety.