rec.autos.simulators

: >:
: >: At the same time, I currently don't have a problem with using the new
: >: refrigerant in my '95 Saturn, and my '66 Mustang doesn't have an A/C,
: >: so I guess I'm currently in good shape.
: >:
: >: I've seen both the media as well as research scientists balloon facts
: >: in order to get attention (Pons-Fleischmann is a good example),

: >But cold fusion was never accepted by the scientific community.  Ozone
: >depletion, OTOH, is accepted and again, Rowland et al won a Nobel Prize
: >for it.

: Check today's New York Times- Science Times section, Tues 6/18.

: It's not so universally accepted as you think.

That's global climate change, not ozone.  That is a much more difficult
and complicated long term problem, and scientists know the difference.

There is lots of controversy about climate change, but most people think
that it is reasonable to think that man can have a significant effect.

That there is controversy is not news to scientists.

What it that effect would be, how long it would take to show up,
and whether it is, at present distinguishable from other sources of
fluctuation is the subject of thousands of scientific papers, a number of
journals, general and specific, and dozens of conferences attended by
a gazillion scientists worldwide.

There is a general reason to worry about it:  man's excess output of CO2
and other gases *is* of similar magnitude to that naturally produced,
and there is fundamental zeroth order thermodynamics + physics that
cannot be made to go away.

--

Oak Ridge National Laboratory/University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN USA/
*NO MASS EMAIL SPAM* It's an abuse of Federal Government computer resources
and an affront to common civility.  On account of egregiously vile spamation,
my software terminates all email from "interramp.com" and "cris.com" without
human intervention.

: [global snip]

: > All the world's industrialized nations wouldn't have agreed to the ban on
: > CFCs if the scientific evidence wasn't overwhelming.

: However, let's not discount the influence of the incredibly powerful
:environmental lobby.

I'm assuming you're being ironic here.

: Scientific evidence in and of itself does not make
: legislation.  Otherwise, we wouldn't have tobacco.  But
: that's another issue.

: Matt

In any case, why would your stereotypical
treehugging-'berkeley'stock-wearing-dope-smoking-socialist-vegetarian-activist
care about some odd flurocarbon chemical?

It is usually incredibly inert.  Why would they invent a problem with *that*
when there are far more obvious and visible ones closer to the ground?

That there is an ozone hole thanks to UV dissociation of freon in polar
stratospheric regions is so utterly bizzare and odd that it can't help but
be true.   One of the first signs was *observational*: a satellite gave
such 'off the scale' numbers that they thought it was an instrument glitch.

Environmentalists have no stake in making up a problem about freon as it's
distracting to their other causes, and scientists have no stake in inventing
something to "demolish the order of the capitalist society" or some such
nonsense because that order is what pays their salaries.

Besides, there's little 'political correctness' on scientific issues among
scientists:  many just itch for the opportunity to bring down some accepted
paradigm, as it brings presitge and fame and money and respect.   It only
works if the facts are on their side.

--

Oak Ridge National Laboratory/University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN USA/
*NO MASS EMAIL SPAM* It's an abuse of Federal Government computer resources
and an affront to common civility.  On account of egregiously vile spamation,
my software terminates all email from "interramp.com" and "cris.com" without
human intervention.

: >
: >This is fabulous!!
: >
: >All I do is start them, jam the pedal to the floor and listen to the
: >rev limiter.  Scares H**l out of passengers who think the engine is
: >gonna explode.  I usually try to spin the tires at 70 KPH in the rain.
: >Much easier with the front wheel drive models.
: >
: >And, oh boy, Curbs  LOOK OUT!  NOCEMS.
: >
: >have your fun and drive it too....
: >
:  

:  Curbs eh?  I love to hit em straight on! and if it pops the Hubcap off
: I go get that they will charge you for that.

:  Another thing to do is take the rental car to a local small airstrip
: and buy some of the class c aviation fuel its about 130 octane and put
: that in the tank and hit the road!!

:  Sometimes on the fords they will get so hot that the underhood plastic
: will "Heat Soak" and actually crumble if you touch it ! I did this to
: the lincoln # 2 in texas last year I kept getting it hot and the fan
: shroud started to crumble away. and the plastic snake wireharness
: covers crumbled away.....

Hey I must be so boring.  I only rip off the radio and replace it with
a fake cover.  

Of course I also pee on all the seats and pour some real fine sand into
the transmission fluid fililer.

It's more fun to do this to the cars that you're not even renting!!!

--

Oak Ridge National Laboratory/University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN USA/
*NO MASS EMAIL SPAM* It's an abuse of Federal Government computer resources
and an affront to common civility.  On account of egregiously vile spamation,
my software terminates all email from "interramp.com" and "cris.com" without
human intervention.

On Jun 20, 1996 00:39:31 in article <Re: Legal Freon Substitute>,

Also, I've seen many examples of scientists and other academics that cannot
get a job if they are on the wrong
side of currently accepted theory.

-

Houston,  Texas

|>  I am dating myself on that one !

Never a doubt here.

What's the problem pal?

Can't get a real date even with all
those "impressive driving skills"?

--

Later,
CT

O o O o O o O o O o O o O o O o O o O o O o O o O o O o O o O
o                                                           o

o                                                           o
O  Do it in the wind.                                       O
o                                                           o
O  95FXSTC   (still ain't fast enough...but gettin' there)  O
o  92XL250R  (what can I say?...HD's don't do offroad)      o
O                                                           O
o  Standard Disclaimer:  I don't care what they say,        o
O                        I had nuthin' to do with it!       O
o                                                           o
O o O o O o O o O o O o O o O o O o O o O o O o O o O o O o O

: (Lloyd R. Parker) writes:
:
: >But the vast majority of the scientific community has accepted the
: >CFC-ozone link, because there's a ton of evidence to support it and none
: >to refute it.
: >
: >
:
: Not so. That vast majority only believe it harms the ozone so they will
: get more cash from the US government to stury how to "fix" the problem.
: The money these guys get is very substantial andif I was being handed over
: that kind of cash i would tell you that the moon was made of green cheese.
:
:
: Gene

No, you are as wrong as the flat-earthers.  CFC has been shown, by
overwhelming evidence and an understanding of the chemistry, to destroy
the ozone layer.  Maybe you should get some FACTS before spouting off.  
Try taking a SCIENCE course.

Not everybody shares your admitted lack of ethics.

: On Jun 20, 1996 00:39:31 in article <Re: Legal Freon Substitute>,

:  
:  
: >
: >Besides, there's little 'political correctness' on scientific issues among
:  
: >scientists:  many just itch for the opportunity to bring down some
: accepted
: >paradigm, as it brings presitge and fame and money and respect.   It only
: works  
: >if the facts are on their side.  
: >
: -
: -
: Money maybe - didn't Congress come up with $1,000,000 for the cold fusion
: guys Pons and Fleishman ?

No.  The state of Utah provided them with a research center.  Nobody
else, including Congress would, because nobody in science really believed
cold fusion happened.  As it turns out, Utah should have listened to the
scientists.

: And Texas A&M "scientists" were able to recreate the experiment
: independently a few days afterwards.
: All phoney.

Not really.  Others got strange results -- sometimes the energy,
sometimes less, most often none at all.  Most never got any particles
associated with fusion.  Nobody was ever able to consistently reproduce
their work (including Pons and Fleischman).

:  
: Also, I've seen many examples of scientists and other academics that cannot
: get a job if they are on the wrong
: side of currently accepted theory.

Then you haven't seen academia.  But seriously, would you hire a
scientist who claims the earth is flat?  Or than gravity is due to angels
tugging on you?  Or the earth is 4000 years old?  Or that a flood covered
with earth?

.  Another favorite is to put the AIR on high and If I am

You must of been neglected in your childhood. I feel sorry for you.
A good doctor might be able to help you. A visit to the county
jail might even do you more good. Your day will come as what goes
around comes around. I see a lot of car breakdowns in your future
and when it happens don't wonder why.

GK

|> Nope, using higher octane gasoline than the engine requires won't make a
|> car perform any better at all.  Putting 100LL (I'm also a pilot) in a
|> car's tank won't do anything to make it run any better if the car is
|> designed to run on 87/89/91 octane, as most are and all modern cars are.
|> All that additional octane does is increase the ability of gasoline to
|> withstand more compression without detonating prior to receiving the
|> spark from the spark plug.

You're right Jerry.  Running higher octane fuel than dictated by the
engine's compression does nothing at all to "improve" performance.
Additionally, it can in some cases actually "degrade" performance and
even cause engine damage.  Because of the formulation to help prevent
detonation, higher octane fuels generally promote slower flame front
travel than lower octane fuels.  That is, the burn rate is attenuated.
Initiating the combustion of high octane fuel in a low compression
motor is like trying to light a wet cigarette.  It's effectively like
retarding the ignition timing.  This can result in engine overheating,
burned exhaust valves, and possibly catalytic converter destruction.
By tuning, (usually increasing ignition advance) the condition can be
compensated for.  However, the performance will be down due to poor
combustion efficiency.  Some computer controlled engines may be capable
of sorting things out and dealing with the fuel change; others may become
thoroughly confused and compound the problem by affecting bogus adjustments
in the system.  Bottom line: filling the tank of a passenger car with
aviation fuel in nothing more than an exercise is wastefulness.

(Evidently the sole intention of the *moron* that conceived this thread.)

--

Later,
CT

O o O o O o O o O o O o O o O o O o O o O o O o O o O o O o O
o                                                           o

o                                                           o
O  Do it in the wind.                                       O
o                                                           o
O  95FXSTC   (still ain't fast enough...but gettin' there)  O
o  92XL250R  (what can I say?...HD's don't do offroad)      o
O                                                           O
o  Standard Disclaimer:  I don't care what they say,        o
O                        I had nuthin' to do with it!       O
o                                                           o
O o O o O o O o O o O o O o O o O o O o O o O o O o O o O o O

: : (Lloyd R. Parker) writes:
: :
: : >But the vast majority of the scientific community has accepted the
: : >CFC-ozone link, because there's a ton of evidence to support it and none
: : >to refute it.
: : >
: : >
: :
: : Not so. That vast majority only believe it harms the ozone so they will
: : get more cash from the US government to stury how to "fix" the problem.
: : The money these guys get is very substantial andif I was being handed over
: : that kind of cash i would tell you that the moon was made of green cheese.
: :
: :
: : Gene

Uhh, no.  One molecule of chloroflourocarbon (any type) can destroy
like fifty thousand molecules of ozone.  Granted, the government says some
types of things expel far more dangers than they actually do, CFC's still
kill ozone.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Mather                                                              
POD Engineering Dept.                                                    

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 They only give you one GIMP spair. and then when you put the gimp
spair on it will only make it a couple burn outs...
--
Stop =-POLICE-= ***.
 E-Mail

  Your comments always welcome