The speed of sound within the barrel is dependent on the temperature of the hot gas behind the projectile, not the pressure. As such the projectile cannot exceed the speed of sound of the gas within the barrel. Now since the speed of is dependent on the molecular weight of the gas and the temperature (not pressure) the speed of sound within the barrel is higher than the speed of sound outside of it. A good explination of this can be found on the Wikipedia page about light gas guns in the design physics section. The pressure in the barrel determines the overall potential energy but not the speed of the projectile.
Further as long as these firearms are only printed for the person's own use, they do not enter into interstate commerce and are thus outside the federal regulatory powers. Thus no need for serial number, no registration with ATF, nada. People will get in trouble when they try to sell or even share these guns, but as long as thy only share the printer components and the data files, no federal regulation is currently applicable.
I am less worried about my neighbors having firearms than I am about the dangerous critters that roam around where I hunt. 2 years ago while deer hunting I had a wolf try and drive me back down the path at dusk, probably into his waiting friends. Last year I saw a cougar walk down the trail about 20 meters from where my stand was set up. The wolf was scared off by discharging a round right in front of it and had it not ran off I was read to discharge the other 9 into it. Also if the cougar had decided to approach I would have done then same. In both cases I was lucky in that I had my firearm easily accessible and not slung across my back but because of the increase of predators in the area where I hunt I am seriously considering getting a large frame revolver to carry as a side arm for personal protection especially since there are also bear where I hunt.
The garlic soup (knoblauchcremesuppe or garlic cream soup) actually doesn't have as pungent of a flavor or smell as one would assume. The cooking of it and the cream/milk dramatically cut the power of the garlic. I had it first when in Vienna and besides if both of you have had it neither of you notices the smell. The garlic cream soup is less pungent than french onion soup so you can use that as a guide.
Given the crap in the prepackaged processed food most Americans eat even eating what I cook would still be orders of magnitude better for you so my health insurance premiums should be going down. Besides the only things that would be considered bad for you would be the German chocolate cake or sweet potato pie again both of which don't contain any heavily processed ingredients. Even the schnitzel isn't that bad for you unless you are eating it all the time, and the bacon wrapped venison roast probably still has less fat than the crappy beef roasts at the grocery store
This is why facebook only knows that I like to cook random food stuff. Seriously that is type of data I would trust facebook with or any random company or government agency. By the way some of my more recent postings are of:
Soda bread
Pork schnitzel in the style of Vienna
Sweet Potato Pie
German chocolate cake
Home made ravioli (stuffed with bison, venison, beef, 3 cheeses, and spinach) in creme sauce
Beef and Guinness stew
Bacon wrapped venison roast slow cooked and smoked in my barbeque
Spicy chili
7 bean casserole
Bison Porter house (it is the size of a dinner plate)
Garlic soup
Actually there have been advances that substantially reduce the variation in the harvest from year to year but it isn't implemented as broadly as it could be. This year was a bad year in almost all states except Maine. The new system is a vacuum device that actually sucks the sap out of the tree instead of waiting for it to drain naturally, problem is that it is expensive and most producers can't afford it. The local paper had a big story on it earlier this year because of how bad the harvest was in neighboring Wisconsin. The article also mentions that last year's bumper harvest basically got evened out by this years bad harvest and that there wouldn't be much if any of a price difference.
Sadly you like myself are probably an outlier. I have a regular sedan for everyday driving, but then I have a Jeep Cherokee for hunting, camping, and hauling. Now granted I don't have to regularly haul really large or bulky stuff so my relatively small (seriously compared to some it is tiny) Jeep can haul it inside, but if I need more room I can go borrow my dad's car trailer that we made sides for if either of us need to haul lots of stuff. The Jeep, when it gets used, mostly is filled with the supplies needed for a week or 2 of hunting or camping. I mostly need it for the high clearance but the 4WD is nice when I screw my self in 2WD I can still get out. Also the 4WD with posi differentials is great in bad weather, but then I don't drive like a retard like it seems every one with AWD does.
Does ford sell the engine as a crate motor in the US, If so go that route. Granted you would need to also swap out a bunch of other stuff and also be in a state that doesn't do emission testing but I couldn't imagine it would be that expensive.
If we just use 2012 technology, the only way you're getting 54 MPG is with a motorcycle
Wrong. If we just used late 1970s and early 1980s technology we could have a vehicle that gets 100mpg the gas engine this runs on is the same one in my large garden tiller which also dates from that era. Hell we could get mileages up close to 80 using post WWII technology. If you would prefer a more modern vehicle with more creature comforts that is capable of seating 4 we could get the required MPG from vehicles from the early 1990s(also know as the Geo Metro). If you didn't care about smog and pollution controls it would be trivial to get even a large vehicle to get that kind of mileage. Even if you didn't want to drive an unsafe pollution factory down the road it is still doable today it just requires more expensive materials.
Hell there have been 4 seater cars that have had more emissions control, and safety equipment than his bike has that have gotten better mileage than that. There was the Geo Metro hatch back from the early 90s that comes to mine as well as a number of vehicles from Europe.
He probably has a Harley with a giant 100 or so cubic inch engine that uses most of the fuel to make noise. My dad has a motor cycle that gets better mileage (much closer to your 250 number) but then it is an old, beat up, worn out Honda 50 which are capable of about 200 mpg when driven right. It was his learner bike and now prefers his Honda 450 which still gets better than 50mpg.
Actually SUVs and trucks are now included currently included. That problem was solved starting in 2012 when medium duty trucks were added and starting in 2014 commercial heavy duty ones will be.
The first car I drove was my mother's Geo Metro Lsi (1 liter 3 banger, 5 speed manual, was the convertible, and had AC) and that stupid thing would get well over 50mpg (I think it was close to 56mpg) and was new enough that it would mostly meet current safety and emissions standards. Now these are actual numbers not the magic numbers printer on the window from the EPA which are useful for comparison between vehicles but worthless otherwise. Now granted this wasn't a 3,000+ pound car but was substantially larger (much larger cross sectional area) and heavier (probably 4x) than your motorcycle. I think it would be quite possible to achieve better numbers than even that Metro I drove got and still meet modern safety and emissions requirements given that you could run a higher compression ratio (that get took 87 octane gas), use diesel instead, have variable valves, better 3 way cats better aerodynamics (this was a convertible after all), use synthetic lubricants, go over to an electric water pump (racers to this), use a 6 speed manual, use better tires, use aluminum body panels, have a dry sump configuration for oil, etc. Here we haven't even gotten to more exotic solutions like reducing the reciprocatingmass of the engine, using exotic composites for body panels, using different combustioncycles, using exotic surface treatments for internal moving parts to decrease internal friction and wear, try a different passenger layouts. There are other options but to believe that automotive design has done all it can in regards to engine efficiency, internal friction, reciprocating mass, drag, rolling resistance, and vehicle weight is just fooling your self. The problem is that to go much beyond what we have now requires lots of money on a one off level or still a substantial amount on the industrial level. Would you be willing to pay $25k-$30k for some cheap econo box instead of $12k now. We could realistically have a 4 passenger car capable of around 100 mpg if we wanted to pay for it.
I would hardly call those things cars. I am not sure of the rules that those cars have to run under but my high school participated in a similar event. There was the modified or unmodified categories as well as the high school and college levels mentioned. We competed in the high school unmodified category (no engine mods allowed) and the competition was held up at Brainerd International Raceway. There isn't really anything that I would call a frame in those vehicles except for the tube structure that the seat, driving wheel (or wheels), and engine are bolted to. The often use bike wheels and tires and the car is built and designed around the driver who is the smallest girl the team can find (cheer leader, gymnast, or dance line girls work best). The engines are you typical lawn mower engine and still have the pull string. This is key to their incredible mileage (not sure if the rules have changed on this or not) but the trick is to have the pulling of the starter string also start moving the vehicle and then once it is up to speed you kill the engine and coast to a stop and repeat.
As much as I wish that this were the case it seems a surprising number of people think along the same lines. The best examples of this I have are from my college days. The first with my intro to physical anthropology class (it was a human evolution course) at the U of MN. On the first day of lecture the professor asked those who thought the universe was about 7,000-10,000 years old and a large portion did. The teacher then asked those who thought the universe was about 14 billion years old to raise their hands and again a large portion did. In neither case was it a majority but probably about 25% for each group. In my lab section for that class we had a few creationists who would always ask the most inane questions, some were trying to trip up the lab TA while others were just so far behind on scientific knowledge that they were struggling with simple concepts that challenged what they were raised to believe.
The other instance was in my intro to astronomy class again were a few creationists tried to trip up the professor. That class was a bit more interesting in that we also had a conspiracy theory guy in there who was big into the ones that we really haven't left low earth orbit for anything.
I would think they would look to something like the FP-45 Liberator or Deer gun which were basically single use disposable handguns that the US made for resistance fighters in WWII and Vietnam. While they were intended to be reloaded their primary function was to be a one time use and to be dropped behind enemy lines to be picked up by resistance fighters. They were dirt cheap to make and in my mind this seems like it would fill a similar function as it would basically be 1 time use.
Slashdot Mirror
The speed of sound within the barrel is dependent on the temperature of the hot gas behind the projectile, not the pressure. As such the projectile cannot exceed the speed of sound of the gas within the barrel. Now since the speed of is dependent on the molecular weight of the gas and the temperature (not pressure) the speed of sound within the barrel is higher than the speed of sound outside of it. A good explination of this can be found on the Wikipedia page about light gas guns in the design physics section. The pressure in the barrel determines the overall potential energy but not the speed of the projectile.
You could cast a barrel but it would need to have a much thicker wall to have the appropriate strength much like the old cast bronze cannons.
Further as long as these firearms are only printed for the person's own use, they do not enter into interstate commerce and are thus outside the federal regulatory powers. Thus no need for serial number, no registration with ATF, nada. People will get in trouble when they try to sell or even share these guns, but as long as thy only share the printer components and the data files, no federal regulation is currently applicable.
Wickard v. Filburn would like to disagree with you as would Gonzales v. Raich
I am less worried about my neighbors having firearms than I am about the dangerous critters that roam around where I hunt. 2 years ago while deer hunting I had a wolf try and drive me back down the path at dusk, probably into his waiting friends. Last year I saw a cougar walk down the trail about 20 meters from where my stand was set up. The wolf was scared off by discharging a round right in front of it and had it not ran off I was read to discharge the other 9 into it. Also if the cougar had decided to approach I would have done then same. In both cases I was lucky in that I had my firearm easily accessible and not slung across my back but because of the increase of predators in the area where I hunt I am seriously considering getting a large frame revolver to carry as a side arm for personal protection especially since there are also bear where I hunt.
As funny as that sounds that wouldn't be news.
I would imagine the results would be similar to this.
The garlic soup (knoblauchcremesuppe or garlic cream soup) actually doesn't have as pungent of a flavor or smell as one would assume. The cooking of it and the cream/milk dramatically cut the power of the garlic. I had it first when in Vienna and besides if both of you have had it neither of you notices the smell. The garlic cream soup is less pungent than french onion soup so you can use that as a guide.
Given the crap in the prepackaged processed food most Americans eat even eating what I cook would still be orders of magnitude better for you so my health insurance premiums should be going down. Besides the only things that would be considered bad for you would be the German chocolate cake or sweet potato pie again both of which don't contain any heavily processed ingredients. Even the schnitzel isn't that bad for you unless you are eating it all the time, and the bacon wrapped venison roast probably still has less fat than the crappy beef roasts at the grocery store
This is why facebook only knows that I like to cook random food stuff. Seriously that is type of data I would trust facebook with or any random company or government agency. By the way some of my more recent postings are of:
Soda bread
Pork schnitzel in the style of Vienna
Sweet Potato Pie
German chocolate cake
Home made ravioli (stuffed with bison, venison, beef, 3 cheeses, and spinach) in creme sauce
Beef and Guinness stew
Bacon wrapped venison roast slow cooked and smoked in my barbeque
Spicy chili
7 bean casserole
Bison Porter house (it is the size of a dinner plate)
Garlic soup
Actually there have been advances that substantially reduce the variation in the harvest from year to year but it isn't implemented as broadly as it could be. This year was a bad year in almost all states except Maine. The new system is a vacuum device that actually sucks the sap out of the tree instead of waiting for it to drain naturally, problem is that it is expensive and most producers can't afford it. The local paper had a big story on it earlier this year because of how bad the harvest was in neighboring Wisconsin. The article also mentions that last year's bumper harvest basically got evened out by this years bad harvest and that there wouldn't be much if any of a price difference.
Sadly you like myself are probably an outlier. I have a regular sedan for everyday driving, but then I have a Jeep Cherokee for hunting, camping, and hauling. Now granted I don't have to regularly haul really large or bulky stuff so my relatively small (seriously compared to some it is tiny) Jeep can haul it inside, but if I need more room I can go borrow my dad's car trailer that we made sides for if either of us need to haul lots of stuff. The Jeep, when it gets used, mostly is filled with the supplies needed for a week or 2 of hunting or camping. I mostly need it for the high clearance but the 4WD is nice when I screw my self in 2WD I can still get out. Also the 4WD with posi differentials is great in bad weather, but then I don't drive like a retard like it seems every one with AWD does.
Does ford sell the engine as a crate motor in the US, If so go that route. Granted you would need to also swap out a bunch of other stuff and also be in a state that doesn't do emission testing but I couldn't imagine it would be that expensive.
How about a 1 liter OBD1 naturally aspirated engine from the early 90s.
If we just use 2012 technology, the only way you're getting 54 MPG is with a motorcycle
Wrong. If we just used late 1970s and early 1980s technology we could have a vehicle that gets 100mpg the gas engine this runs on is the same one in my large garden tiller which also dates from that era. Hell we could get mileages up close to 80 using post WWII technology. If you would prefer a more modern vehicle with more creature comforts that is capable of seating 4 we could get the required MPG from vehicles from the early 1990s(also know as the Geo Metro). If you didn't care about smog and pollution controls it would be trivial to get even a large vehicle to get that kind of mileage. Even if you didn't want to drive an unsafe pollution factory down the road it is still doable today it just requires more expensive materials.
Hell there have been 4 seater cars that have had more emissions control, and safety equipment than his bike has that have gotten better mileage than that. There was the Geo Metro hatch back from the early 90s that comes to mine as well as a number of vehicles from Europe.
He probably has a Harley with a giant 100 or so cubic inch engine that uses most of the fuel to make noise. My dad has a motor cycle that gets better mileage (much closer to your 250 number) but then it is an old, beat up, worn out Honda 50 which are capable of about 200 mpg when driven right. It was his learner bike and now prefers his Honda 450 which still gets better than 50mpg.
Actually SUVs and trucks are now included currently included. That problem was solved starting in 2012 when medium duty trucks were added and starting in 2014 commercial heavy duty ones will be.
The first car I drove was my mother's Geo Metro Lsi (1 liter 3 banger, 5 speed manual, was the convertible, and had AC) and that stupid thing would get well over 50mpg (I think it was close to 56mpg) and was new enough that it would mostly meet current safety and emissions standards. Now these are actual numbers not the magic numbers printer on the window from the EPA which are useful for comparison between vehicles but worthless otherwise. Now granted this wasn't a 3,000+ pound car but was substantially larger (much larger cross sectional area) and heavier (probably 4x) than your motorcycle. I think it would be quite possible to achieve better numbers than even that Metro I drove got and still meet modern safety and emissions requirements given that you could run a higher compression ratio (that get took 87 octane gas), use diesel instead, have variable valves, better 3 way cats better aerodynamics (this was a convertible after all), use synthetic lubricants, go over to an electric water pump (racers to this), use a 6 speed manual, use better tires, use aluminum body panels, have a dry sump configuration for oil, etc. Here we haven't even gotten to more exotic solutions like reducing the reciprocating mass of the engine, using exotic composites for body panels, using different combustion cycles, using exotic surface treatments for internal moving parts to decrease internal friction and wear, try a different passenger layouts. There are other options but to believe that automotive design has done all it can in regards to engine efficiency, internal friction, reciprocating mass, drag, rolling resistance, and vehicle weight is just fooling your self. The problem is that to go much beyond what we have now requires lots of money on a one off level or still a substantial amount on the industrial level. Would you be willing to pay $25k-$30k for some cheap econo box instead of $12k now. We could realistically have a 4 passenger car capable of around 100 mpg if we wanted to pay for it.
I would hardly call those things cars. I am not sure of the rules that those cars have to run under but my high school participated in a similar event. There was the modified or unmodified categories as well as the high school and college levels mentioned. We competed in the high school unmodified category (no engine mods allowed) and the competition was held up at Brainerd International Raceway. There isn't really anything that I would call a frame in those vehicles except for the tube structure that the seat, driving wheel (or wheels), and engine are bolted to. The often use bike wheels and tires and the car is built and designed around the driver who is the smallest girl the team can find (cheer leader, gymnast, or dance line girls work best). The engines are you typical lawn mower engine and still have the pull string. This is key to their incredible mileage (not sure if the rules have changed on this or not) but the trick is to have the pulling of the starter string also start moving the vehicle and then once it is up to speed you kill the engine and coast to a stop and repeat.
Thought the same thing as soon as I read the parent. Wish I had mod points today.
As much as I wish that this were the case it seems a surprising number of people think along the same lines. The best examples of this I have are from my college days. The first with my intro to physical anthropology class (it was a human evolution course) at the U of MN. On the first day of lecture the professor asked those who thought the universe was about 7,000-10,000 years old and a large portion did. The teacher then asked those who thought the universe was about 14 billion years old to raise their hands and again a large portion did. In neither case was it a majority but probably about 25% for each group. In my lab section for that class we had a few creationists who would always ask the most inane questions, some were trying to trip up the lab TA while others were just so far behind on scientific knowledge that they were struggling with simple concepts that challenged what they were raised to believe.
The other instance was in my intro to astronomy class again were a few creationists tried to trip up the professor. That class was a bit more interesting in that we also had a conspiracy theory guy in there who was big into the ones that we really haven't left low earth orbit for anything.
and they'll dig their heels in a little deeper
I hope that isn't their only digging.
I would think they would look to something like the FP-45 Liberator or Deer gun which were basically single use disposable handguns that the US made for resistance fighters in WWII and Vietnam. While they were intended to be reloaded their primary function was to be a one time use and to be dropped behind enemy lines to be picked up by resistance fighters. They were dirt cheap to make and in my mind this seems like it would fill a similar function as it would basically be 1 time use.
I would only wear that if I wanted a divorce or felt the need to be turned into a eunuch while I sleep.
TSA:
Terrorists
Suppressing
Americans