Ok .....lets go back to AMPS now.
Thanks a bunch.....73 Will, K6NDV
AMPS reflector administrator
-----Original Message-----
From: amps-admin@contesting.com [mailto:amps-admin@contesting.com]On
Behalf Of Jim Strohm
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 4:48 PM
To: amps@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [Amps] re:(amps 10 meters)
Jon Ogden <na9d-2@speakeasy.net>
>This is way off topic for the reflector, but I can't let this go by
>untouched. That's a bunch of BS you spout.
>
>The facts are that in order to make more fuel efficient engines, they will
>have to be smaller and less powerful. You can't get something for nothing.
>Unless they can somehow develop an engine that is able to convert less of
>its energy into heat, you can't improve a large SUV engine to something
that
>gets 36 mpg and has the same performance.
>
>I don't want an SUV with a 4 cylinder engine. This is America and if I
want
>to drive a gas guzzler, I want to do so.
>
>And the last thing one wants is the government mandating innovation. Since
>when have government mandates ever worked like that.
>
>Let's see, the last major government that mandated everything was the
>country named the USSR. That country doesn't exist any more and the
>countries that came out of it are a total mess today.
Actually, it's not that far off-topic.
On the issue of efficiency -- compare a 1930-vintage plate-modulated AM
kilowatt-class transmitter to a modern solid-state kilowatt SSB
transmitter. In terms of bandwidth, power consumption, and physical size
and weight, the new rig is an order of magnitude more efficient in all
respects.
That does not mean we CANNOT have, use, or manufacture the old-style rig.
However, if we do, its manufacture and use will be wasteful of scarce
resources.
As far as fuel efficiency -- my brother has a '99 Corvette. He gets
20something miles a gallon on the highway and in town, almost regardless of
driving speed, unless he gets stuck in Dallas traffic for three hours.
It's good for about 400 flywheel horsepower, maybe 275 at the rear wheels,
on a 350 ci engine.
When I was just out of high school, I had a '70 Roadrunner with a 440
Magnum. It was rated at 425 HP at the flywheel and put maybe 300 on the
ground. Fuel economy? In perfect air, the best I ever saw was 15. Normal
highway mileage was closer to 8, in town fell to as low as 3 WITHOUT heavy
traffic like we see today.
Acceleration and top speed? My brother's Corvette could beat the
Roadrunner in both respects, any time, any place.
It's not "something for nothing." It's advances in engineering -- in this
particular case, driven in part by federal regulation. For if the 'Vette
got the kind of gas mileage that 1960s-technology cars got, it would get
slapped with a luxury tax like a Ferrari -- is it still $10,000 on the
sticker price? I'm not sure.
Right now, we have a lot of tweaked motorcycles on the road that can
produce in excess of 150 hp per litre of displacement. And these are
normally aspirated motors running pump gas. That's approx. 2.5 HP / CI,
which would work out to an 875 HP Corvette. My brother sees slightly less
than half that.
Now, those figures ARE misleading (kinda like CBers' "DC PEP watts"). The
motorcycle motors spool up well past 13,000 RPMs, and a Chevy won't run
reliably past 7500. But the fact remains -- you do NOT have to have an
elephant motor to make elephant power.
Back when Congress passed the first fuel efficiency laws in the mid-70s, a
corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) in the mid-20 MPG looked impossible
to attain. Now, it's surprising to see a full-size mini-van not attaining
this figure.
Engines are smaller, vehicles are lighter. That does NOT mean they are any
less capable. Apparently you've forgotten what a pig your old Chevy truck
was in terms of ALL measures of performance. We still have plenty of
efficiency still to be wrung out of vehicles. It's not unreasonable for
Congress to put a carrot on a stick in front of Detroit in this respect --
it worked last time. Or have you forgotten how many times you rebuilt an
engine in your 1960s vehicle to get a reliable 200,000 miles out of it?
And this does NOT come at the expense of sufficient power to have safe cars
and trucks. A safe vehicle MUST have enough power for acceleration to hit
highway speed in less than 10 seconds from a full stop. Did you forget how
long it took your 6-cylinder 1955 Bel Air to get to 55?
The feds are not "mandating" innovation. They should encourage it, and
penalize the failure to innovate. Right now, we have an administration
that encourages energy consumption for reasons of political pork. Without
any reason to improve or innovate, Detroit will sell only what people ask
for -- big gas-guzzling SUVs. And those vehicles -- clue time here -- pose
the biggest danger to the Americans who choose NOT to buy big vehicles --
because big cars crush little cars. And THAT was the Senate's most
compelling argument against the new fuel economy rules -- that people
forced into smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles would be endangered by
the uncaring and thoughtless multitudes in larger, less-efficient vehicles.
So to be safe, let's burn more gasoline in bigger vehicles.
That being the csae, it would be logical to buy a conventional Peterbuilt
for a commuter car, because it's bigger and burns more fuel, and thus safer.
And -- coming back on-topic -- you NEED to build a 10 kW amplifier and run
it at full power all the time, because it's GOOD to use more power. Right?
I hope I've led you down a primrose path here.
As a nation, we need to start using ALL our resources more sparingly. Ad
one of the easiest ways is to target the single largest energy user in the
country, and mandate incremental improvements in energy use.
I think you'd get the idea if you had your Lincoln Navigator shipped to
Europe for a month-long driving tour of the continent. That 2-euro-a-litre
fuel would get old after a while.
_______________________________________________
Amps mailing list
Amps@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/amps
|