I picked one up yesterday for retail. Paying more than retail is just retarded.
The hard part is finding a Wii. I am still looking for one but I think the shortage will ease early in January.
Are you surprised? Everyday some bullshit study comes out trying to tell everyone what is good and bad for you. Eggs have been eaten for thousands of years. Then they decided it is no good for you, people started eating the whites only, or switching to fake eggs. FAKE EGGS??? What the fuck is wrong with people who by into this bullshit. The study was most likely funded by the Egg-Beaters parent company in an effort to increase sales. Then finally someone not on the take and with some credibility studied the situation and said "This is fucked, eggs are fine."
The point is the modern diet has changed so drastically in the last 60 years with the advent of processed foods, the replacement of butter with hydrogenated oils (aka trans-fats), and bullshit diet products that may lack calories but almost all have been proven to be poison to your body, even though the FDA looks the other way and allows them to market.
You know, it disgusts me when I go to the store and I see a product with a big splash graphic claiming no trans fats, yet when you read the ingredient it has hydrogenated oil which IS TRANS FAT!! It gets harder and harder all the time to eat right. It amazes me that animals are fed ground up parts of other animals. What the fuck is that all about. Cows are meant to eat grass not ground up cow bones and innards. Agriculture is just another business now which rely on pesticides or genetically modified plants. Seriously what kind of fucking moron thought it would be a good idea to do this? Yeah yeah, third world countries could grow more crops, blah blah blah. What if those crops in the long run actually poison the people? The long term effects of this shit has not been tested, the technology has only been around for a few years. And it is god damn scary that that a farmer cannot keep the seeds from a crop and grow another one the next year. It also amazes me that they allow animals to eat the GM food but won't allow it in the human food chain. Hell-fuckin-lo who the fuck eats the animals (besides other animals). We do so that shit ends up in our systems anyway. Well at least we will take comfort in knowing that in a few years we will all be Roundup resistant, unfortunately so will all the other bugs and fungi and whatever the hell else can ruin a crop.
Holy shit what a rant!!!
I guess that is it, there might be a point in there somewhere. Merry Christmas!
Many more Arab civilians died before we got hit as a retaliation for bad US foreign policy. Oh but keep ignoring that fact and blindly follow what your government tells you to.
"While the turbocharger is super efficient like you said, it does come at a cost too...you HAVE to run some sort of intercooler, whether it is air-to-air or air-to-water depends on the turbo sizing, air charges, and more. When you look at the big picture between the two, you notice that in a lot of supercharger applications (especially factory ones that utilize centrifugal units instead of "roots-type" or twin-screw systems, they don't have to use an intercooler, as the ACT (air charge temperature) can be significantly lower, as it's being driven by a belt, not by the hot exhaust gasses"
Your assumption is incorrect, the temperature of the charged air coming out of the compressor of the turbo is not heated due to the exhaust gases, it is heated because it is being compressed. Compressing the air generates friction, this heat is what is dissipated by the aftercooler. You can run a turbo and a super charger without aftercoolers. It is more efficient to run them both with aftercoolers as a denser charge can be packed into the combustion chamber .
Parasitic drag is associated with parts that are mechanically linked to the engine (aka. alternator, supercharger, water pump, etc..) through belts or gearing.
As far as back pressure, yes a turbo does increase back pressure. It causes a resistive force when the exhaust valves are open in the other cylinders that are combusting. But the losses are no where near as great at high RPM as with a supercharger.
I am curious on how you were able to increase your gas mileage by just adding a turbo. I assume you had to upgrade your injectors and the engine management software to accommodate the turbo.
Wouldn't the increased air flow require a higher amount of fuel to maintain the proper stoichiometric ratio?
Actually the supercharger is considered less efficient at higher RPMs because of the parasitic drag on the motor that consumes up to 40% of the horsepower to just drive the blower. Now this may not be an issue when the blower increases hp by 60%, so your net gain is still greater than without the blower, but the turbo does not rob the engine of horsepower like the blower does.
It is interesting to note that Volkswagen has come up with a new engine that is just 1.4 liters, yet it utilizes a supercharger and a turbocharger. The supercharger supplies boost until the turbo spools up, then an electro magnetic clutch disengages the supercharger. It peaks at 170 hp with a fuel consumption of 47.9 mpg.
The strength limitation can be a issue with a diesel engine as the peak torque produced by the motor is available at low RPMs. Now if the diesel engine is small enough, modern CVT design should be able to handle the torque.
Another possibility is the DSG transmission that was developed by the Volkswagen/Audi group. This transmission utilizes two clutches, one for each bank of gears, to instantaneously switch gears. It allows for the fuel economy and strength of a standard transmission while also providing the convince of an automatic.
You are correct that turbochargers increase gas consumption versus a naturally aspirated engine of the same size. The real benefit to the turbocharger is you can get horsepower and torque out of a 4 cylinder 2.0 liter engine that is comparable to a naturally aspirated 6 or even sometimes 8 cylinder engine, while being much more fuel efficient than the larger displacement counterpart.
Of course the downside is the extra maintenance cost, higher stresses on the motor which may lead to shorter engine life, but you have to love the power to weight ratio.
I would suggest that CyricZ not try to evaluate the data from the 1950's or he would conclude that colds are caught from quadruple bacterial penetration by 4 viruses into one cell at the SAME TIME!!!.
I liked it when it was called Pepsi Kona.
It was out in test markets like Philadelphia back in 1996-1997.
They felt there was no market for it even though many people I knew enjoyed it.
Maybe Coke's product will be just as good, I would drink it again.
Enough of this guys!
I think you can agree to disagree.
Below are two links which list the causes of highway congestion in the US and solutions. I think we can agree that this information can be applied for the most part in Europe also.
The first link is from the California Surface Transportation Policy Project.
The underlying causes of congestion are far more complicated than many traditional interests have historically been willing to admit. The ability of available roadway space - the most traditional method of measuring supply or capacity as expressed in lane-miles - to meet traffic demand as measured in vehicle miles traveled, is just one of a set of several underlying factors that research has found contribute to traffic congestion.
Here is a another link to the Federal Highway Administration of the US which states that the leading cause of highway congestion is lack of capacity.
"FHWA is focusing its efforts on addressing both the recurring and non-recurring portions of the traffic congestion problem. In addition to providing substantial assistance to State and local transportation agencies as they develop projects to increase capacity and remove bottlenecks, FHWA is also focusing on short-term initiatives to mitigate congestion through effective system management and operations strategies. FHWA has designated congestion mitigation as one of its "vital few" priorities and is focusing resources on developing and sustaining regional partnerships to address all aspects of congestion and working to reduce two of the most prevalent causes of traffic congestion: work zones and traffic incidents."
It is generally accept by traffic engineers that the ability of highways to sustainability keep up with increasing vehicular demand is not feasible. While smaller cars may be a short term solution to reduce the total lane-miles of cars on the highway , a long term solution would be to give up cars and use improved mass transit systems. The difficulty of the small car solution for the short term is getting people to give up their large cars in favor of smaller vehicles. The difficulty of the long term solution is getting people to give up their cars completely. Now this long term solution is not expressed outright in the linked articles but I think we can agree that it would be the ultimate goal in traffic reduction.
So from the information presented in the above links it is clear to see that traffic congestion is a complicated issue with no easy solution. But as long as people keep thinking about the problem maybe some solutions can be thought up to ease the situation. And for the AC, next time you decide to bash a persons ideas you should really have a better idea to present.
Perhaps it is not a matter of people being ignorant on nuclear technology or worry about it being in there backyard. Maybe they are worried about the potential for ignorant people handling said technology leading to bad things happening.
King of the Kickboxers - absolute worst movie ever made!!!!!
Relax Cap!!
If you don't believe watch this roadkill sometime, if you can find it
I don't have access to movie databases but if somebody could reply with a link, that would be swell.
Being a space cadet and actually qualifying to be in space are two different things.
Actually Bush is now setting a personal best record of 3 years and 7 and a half months without choking on a dried baked good.
Slashdot Mirror
Just in time for me to junk my HD CRT TV.
I picked one up yesterday for retail. Paying more than retail is just retarded. The hard part is finding a Wii. I am still looking for one but I think the shortage will ease early in January.
Cause J.K Rowling hasn't written "Harry Potter and the Blue Screen of Death"
Not everyone only reads C++ GUI interfaces guides.
Sorry, Volkswagen stopped bring that model to the US, now you must take your game to Europe and play it there.
You need the Ove-Glove!!
Nah, the NSA will just put some wire taps on them, you know, just in case.
Are you surprised? Everyday some bullshit study comes out trying to tell everyone what is good and bad for you. Eggs have been eaten for thousands of years. Then they decided it is no good for you, people started eating the whites only, or switching to fake eggs. FAKE EGGS??? What the fuck is wrong with people who by into this bullshit. The study was most likely funded by the Egg-Beaters parent company in an effort to increase sales. Then finally someone not on the take and with some credibility studied the situation and said "This is fucked, eggs are fine."
The point is the modern diet has changed so drastically in the last 60 years with the advent of processed foods, the replacement of butter with hydrogenated oils (aka trans-fats), and bullshit diet products that may lack calories but almost all have been proven to be poison to your body, even though the FDA looks the other way and allows them to market.
You know, it disgusts me when I go to the store and I see a product with a big splash graphic claiming no trans fats, yet when you read the ingredient it has hydrogenated oil which IS TRANS FAT!! It gets harder and harder all the time to eat right. It amazes me that animals are fed ground up parts of other animals. What the fuck is that all about. Cows are meant to eat grass not ground up cow bones and innards. Agriculture is just another business now which rely on pesticides or genetically modified plants. Seriously what kind of fucking moron thought it would be a good idea to do this? Yeah yeah, third world countries could grow more crops, blah blah blah. What if those crops in the long run actually poison the people? The long term effects of this shit has not been tested, the technology has only been around for a few years. And it is god damn scary that that a farmer cannot keep the seeds from a crop and grow another one the next year. It also amazes me that they allow animals to eat the GM food but won't allow it in the human food chain. Hell-fuckin-lo who the fuck eats the animals (besides other animals). We do so that shit ends up in our systems anyway. Well at least we will take comfort in knowing that in a few years we will all be Roundup resistant, unfortunately so will all the other bugs and fungi and whatever the hell else can ruin a crop.
Holy shit what a rant!!!
I guess that is it, there might be a point in there somewhere. Merry Christmas!
Many more Arab civilians died before we got hit as a retaliation for bad US foreign policy. Oh but keep ignoring that fact and blindly follow what your government tells you to.
"While the turbocharger is super efficient like you said, it does come at a cost too...you HAVE to run some sort of intercooler, whether it is air-to-air or air-to-water depends on the turbo sizing, air charges, and more. When you look at the big picture between the two, you notice that in a lot of supercharger applications (especially factory ones that utilize centrifugal units instead of "roots-type" or twin-screw systems, they don't have to use an intercooler, as the ACT (air charge temperature) can be significantly lower, as it's being driven by a belt, not by the hot exhaust gasses"
Your assumption is incorrect, the temperature of the charged air coming out of the compressor of the turbo is not heated due to the exhaust gases, it is heated because it is being compressed. Compressing the air generates friction, this heat is what is dissipated by the aftercooler. You can run a turbo and a super charger without aftercoolers. It is more efficient to run them both with aftercoolers as a denser charge can be packed into the combustion chamber .
Parasitic drag is associated with parts that are mechanically linked to the engine (aka. alternator, supercharger, water pump, etc..) through belts or gearing.
As far as back pressure, yes a turbo does increase back pressure. It causes a resistive force when the exhaust valves are open in the other cylinders that are combusting. But the losses are no where near as great at high RPM as with a supercharger.
I am curious on how you were able to increase your gas mileage by just adding a turbo. I assume you had to upgrade your injectors and the engine management software to accommodate the turbo.
Wouldn't the increased air flow require a higher amount of fuel to maintain the proper stoichiometric ratio?
This was implied in the first sentence of my previous post. Thank you for elaborating on that point though.
Actually the supercharger is considered less efficient at higher RPMs because of the parasitic drag on the motor that consumes up to 40% of the horsepower to just drive the blower. Now this may not be an issue when the blower increases hp by 60%, so your net gain is still greater than without the blower, but the turbo does not rob the engine of horsepower like the blower does.
It is interesting to note that Volkswagen has come up with a new engine that is just 1.4 liters, yet it utilizes a supercharger and a turbocharger. The supercharger supplies boost until the turbo spools up, then an electro magnetic clutch disengages the supercharger. It peaks at 170 hp with a fuel consumption of 47.9 mpg.
Twin Charger
The strength limitation can be a issue with a diesel engine as the peak torque produced by the motor is available at low RPMs. Now if the diesel engine is small enough, modern CVT design should be able to handle the torque.
Another possibility is the DSG transmission that was developed by the Volkswagen/Audi group. This transmission utilizes two clutches, one for each bank of gears, to instantaneously switch gears. It allows for the fuel economy and strength of a standard transmission while also providing the convince of an automatic.
You are correct that turbochargers increase gas consumption versus a naturally aspirated engine of the same size. The real benefit to the turbocharger is you can get horsepower and torque out of a 4 cylinder 2.0 liter engine that is comparable to a naturally aspirated 6 or even sometimes 8 cylinder engine, while being much more fuel efficient than the larger displacement counterpart.
Of course the downside is the extra maintenance cost, higher stresses on the motor which may lead to shorter engine life, but you have to love the power to weight ratio.
Well, if the TSA is on charge of security, expect a queue time of 10 hours due the newly implemented body cavity searches and mandatory flea bath.
Wow!! What a tasteful and insightful linked post.
I would suggest that CyricZ not try to evaluate the data from the 1950's or he would conclude that colds are caught from quadruple bacterial penetration by 4 viruses into one cell at the SAME TIME!!!.
I liked it when it was called Pepsi Kona. It was out in test markets like Philadelphia back in 1996-1997. They felt there was no market for it even though many people I knew enjoyed it. Maybe Coke's product will be just as good, I would drink it again.
http://www.transact.org/Ca/congestion1.htm
Here is a another link to the Federal Highway Administration of the US which states that the leading cause of highway congestion is lack of capacity.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/congestion/congest2.htm
It is generally accept by traffic engineers that the ability of highways to sustainability keep up with increasing vehicular demand is not feasible. While smaller cars may be a short term solution to reduce the total lane-miles of cars on the highway , a long term solution would be to give up cars and use improved mass transit systems. The difficulty of the small car solution for the short term is getting people to give up their large cars in favor of smaller vehicles. The difficulty of the long term solution is getting people to give up their cars completely. Now this long term solution is not expressed outright in the linked articles but I think we can agree that it would be the ultimate goal in traffic reduction.
So from the information presented in the above links it is clear to see that traffic congestion is a complicated issue with no easy solution. But as long as people keep thinking about the problem maybe some solutions can be thought up to ease the situation. And for the AC, next time you decide to bash a persons ideas you should really have a better idea to present.
Perhaps it is not a matter of people being ignorant on nuclear technology or worry about it being in there backyard. Maybe they are worried about the potential for ignorant people handling said technology leading to bad things happening.
I got you all beat.
King of the Kickboxers - absolute worst movie ever made!!!!!
Relax Cap!!
If you don't believe watch this roadkill sometime, if you can find it I don't have access to movie databases but if somebody could reply with a link, that would be swell.
The time on the ground might be less than the time in the air. But,it sure beats the hell out of driving for a few days.
Now it is a barred swirl of caramel and chocolate
Being a space cadet and actually qualifying to be in space are two different things. Actually Bush is now setting a personal best record of 3 years and 7 and a half months without choking on a dried baked good.