|
Post by kawaiidragonfoe821 on Apr 26, 2006 19:59:10 GMT -5
Nah, I'm talking about fuel cars that are made for dragging (not that some 'street' cars aren't, though) but I have a friend who drags & he says that in the lane, 1/2 a second behind is a lot.
|
|
|
Post by maherjunkie on Apr 29, 2006 9:13:19 GMT -5
Oh I'm not worried about whipping around curves LOL (though I have to chuckle at the thought of an electric vette, mustang etc...). It's pulling power, I have a three horse slant steal horse trailer that i need to pull & I just don't think that an electric vehicle will do the job. Flex fuel may power Willie's tour bus, but he doesn't have to haul anything behind it, the stress on the engine is totally different when you have something that weighs 5000 lbs dragging behind you with two 1000 horses in it.
color] You don't think Willie carries that much in plant substances?
|
|
|
Post by kawaiidragonfoe821 on Apr 30, 2006 8:04:50 GMT -5
No, I meant that the weight distrbution is different when you're pulling a 5000lb trailer with the added weight of two 1000lb animals as opposed to a tour bus pulling just its own weight.
What I'd like to see is cars that are powered by propane instead of oil.
|
|
|
Post by trisha on Apr 30, 2006 8:52:58 GMT -5
No, I meant that the weight distrbution is different when you're pulling a 5000lb trailer with the added weight of two 1000lb animals as opposed to a tour bus pulling just its own weight.
What I'd like to see is cars that are powered by propane instead of oil. What? How will that help with fuel costs or reduce our dependence on oil? First, propane is derived from oil, and second and more importantly, it's not produced for its own sake. It's a byproduct of refining oil and processing natural gas. Besides, it's illogical to replace one non-renewable resource with another. Trying to replace gasoline with propane makes as much sense as Bush suggesting that we start building more nuclear power plants to meet the future demand for power (seeing how uranium is even more finite on this planet than petroleum).
|
|
|
Post by Sirenna on Apr 30, 2006 19:04:40 GMT -5
I have to admit, Kwaiidragon. You two points don't make much sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by madger on May 1, 2006 10:44:21 GMT -5
We need methane power. There is enough of it being produced in Washington alone to fuel us for years to come. madger
|
|
|
Post by kawaiidragonfoe821 on May 3, 2006 16:33:23 GMT -5
Damn LOL I realized mu dumb mistake as I was going to bed the other night, then work came up & I didnt have time to edit my post, sorry for the mixup. I KNEW that propane was derived from oil.... where HAS my brain been lately???
|
|
|
Post by Metella on May 4, 2006 7:29:28 GMT -5
I didn't know that - I just assumed it was like nature gas and was tapped from the ground. Still it is a pollutant and a limited source - all money thrown there will just lead us to this same position - that is what could be defined as INSANITY. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
|
|
|
Post by kawaiidragonfoe821 on May 5, 2006 13:14:51 GMT -5
I was watching something interesting on the science channel the other day, they were talking about the possability of populating Mars if something terrible were to happen to earth. What are you're views?
|
|
|
Post by Patcat on May 5, 2006 13:47:27 GMT -5
It's not enough that we pollute and destroy one planet? If I was a Martian, I'd be plenty irked about this. (g)
Patcat
|
|
|
Post by Major Hathaway on May 5, 2006 14:17:56 GMT -5
kawaiidragonfoe821 - check your pm's.
|
|
Duet
Silver Shield Investigator
Bing.... Reality.
Posts: 129
|
Post by Duet on May 5, 2006 14:59:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Cassie on May 5, 2006 15:52:41 GMT -5
I wouldn't want to re-locate to Mars. The atmosphere would be different and most likely we would have to live inside 24/7. We would miss the 4 seasons. If given the choice, and I know its not possibly. I would prefer we use out technology to make a time machine. Where we could go back and live in the past, or possibly go into the future. I would choose the later 1800's where their are some luxieries. but I would be wearing pants when I wanted to
|
|
|
Post by Techguy on May 5, 2006 22:36:07 GMT -5
www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/9257395/mars_or_bustExcerpts (I highlighted a portion of the second paragraph for emphasis): . . . Last fall, to almost zero publicity, NASA released an actual plan for the Crew Exploration Vehicle. Ever since 2004, when President Bush declared a manned mission to Mars to be the "new course" of America's space program, engineers and scientists at the agency have spent their days in an extended scramble, rearranging their projects and priorities. The spaceship is still tentative, nothing but broad guidelines for the contractors who have signed on to design the thing. Before there were plans, NASA engineers talked about the Mars craft in the hushed abstraction of metaphor, called it the Winnebago -- as in, "how much stuff can we fit in the Winnebago?" Now that there is a design, their conversations have begun to edge into the fantastic. Respected scientists -- men who are normally fastidious, blunt, dead serious -- are suddenly full of Star Trek-size dreams of exploring distant galaxies and populating other planets. . . . At this stage, however, the Vision seems less a scientific undertaking than another of the president's faith-based initiatives. In order to succeed, NASA will need rockets that haven't been developed, robotic devices that have barely been contemplated and technologies that are, at best, just an inspired idea in an engineer's head. The Apollo missions to the moon took three days each way; even if the trip to the Red Planet is timed for the moment when Earth and Mars swing closest to each other in their revolutions around the sun, the voyage will take two-and-a-half years: six months out, eighteen months on Mars, six months back. While there, the astronauts will be expected not only to create a self-sustaining human community for themselves -- one capable of producing their own food, water and energy -- but to build a permanent base for future missions. To survive, they will likely need a whole new way of generating energy and synthetic materials that have yet to be invented.
|
|
|
Post by maherjunkie on May 6, 2006 9:04:07 GMT -5
I wouldn't want to re-locate to Mars. The atmosphere would be different and most likely we would have to live inside 24/7. We would miss the 4 seasons. If given the choice, and I know its not possibly. I would prefer we use out technology to make a time machine. Where we could go back and live in the past, or possibly go into the future. I would choose the later 1800's where their are some luxieries. but I would be wearing pants when I wanted to I think it's easier to elect smarter people.
|
|