rec.autos.simulators

by **David Linwood Pear** » Fri, 28 Jun 1996 04:00:00

>> Some idiot is setting at the light
>> > >with
>> > >>a Lincold Continental. I thought the brakes had over heated in the
>> > >rear at
>> > >>first. Maybe they had, but they had because the guy was power braking
>> > >the
>> > >>thing at wideopen. The rear wheels were spinning so fast, they weren't
>> > >even
>> > >>squalling. Left dual marks all the way across the intersection. Guy
>> > >looked
>> > >>to be in his mid thirties to 40's. You could see him laughing and
>> > >grinning
>> > >>like a idiot to his riding partner. He sat there for at least 45 to 50

>> > >>seconds like that. Had to be pretty tough on the whole driveline. I
>> > >respect
>> > >>teh 4.6L after that, anything that can take that kind of abuse that
>> > >long
>> > >>is pretty tough.

>> > Except that the Continental is front wheel drive....
>> > --
>> > Jordan Blessing L1 Master Tech

>> When did the Continental go to front wheel drive? I had a Continental
>> company car several years ago (what a BOAT!) and it was still a
>> rear-wheel drive car.
>> --
>> Jerry Bransford
>> PP-ASEL, KC6TAY, C.A.P.
>> The Zen hotdog... make me one with everything!

>the new continentals are based offf of the taurus line, which means it
>is a front wheel drive 3.8L v6. the only rear wheel drive licolns are
>the towncar and mark 8. the continental has been front wheel drive at
>least since 1989

It was the Land yacht Town Car then. I used to change the oil in cars, and the one I saw was rear
wheel drive. I used Continental, as I thought you could still call all Lincolns Connies when they
were loaded with all the external gaudy stuff.

Later,

TurboDave

David L. Pearce
1984 Laser XE Turbo

by **David Linwood Pear** » Fri, 28 Jun 1996 04:00:00

>More *intelligent* feedback from the ignorant

While CFC may need to be banned, the guy whose intelligence you are commenting on, has
made a point. Enviromentalist are bent in the wrong directions. Electric Cars can provide
clean and effecient transportation, however, where is all that power going to come from?
Just as much coal will have to be burnt to make up for the hydrocarbons that will not be burnt
in cars. And they wouldn't dare have us put up any safe and clean nuclear power plants. Just
don't want to store that waste. From the collective of literature out there, its seems like there
are many safe methods of waste storage, but everyone is so afraid of putting it in their states.
Waste from current plants that burn oil are just as bad. The damage they cause is just as
permamanent. Not to mention, Waste turn around on a reactor is ten years. What little comes
out could easily be stored. That for me, equates to a whole lot of clean energy.

And everyone seems to want to bring up 3 Mile Island when nuclear comes to the forefront.
It seems that TMI was not all that big of an accident. Plus the fact that current power plant
designs are much safer, and Chernobyl is not even a factor since it was obsolete when built.
It was an accident waiting to happen.

Later,

TurboDave

David L. Pearce
1984 Laser XE Turbo

by **John He** » Sat, 29 Jun 1996 04:00:00

says...

>: >
>: > But it HAS been proven CFCs destroy the ozone layer. Have you read ANY
>: > scientific articles? Where does your pseudoinformation come from? And
it
>: > was an international treaty, signed by President Bush and ratified by
the
>: > Senate, that's banned R12. Not the EPA.
>:
>: This is not true. They only have theories to explain what they think is
>: happening. The EPA is the one that pushed for the ban on R-12. Arizon
rocks
>: because they are defying the ban and will continue to produce R-12.

>1. A theory is the accepted scientific explanation for something. It is
>NOT just somebody's idea or guess. You might learn the meaning of terms
>before you use them. The theory about CFCs destroying the ozone layer is
>accepted by the scientific community, by the leaders of the western
>nations, by the Nobel Prize committee, etc. And because:

>2. There is overwhelming hard data supporting this theory. Data =
>facts. Something you wouldn't know anything about.
>:
>: If you want fact about this (R-12 I mean), talk with any

Civil/Environmental
chemisty, physics, and the stratosphere than a politician. As for Al Gore's
book, to be _science_ fiction, one must first have some science. Gore's
book is, purely and simply, a political tome.

As for opening a scientific journal, that is the easy part. The hard (and
relevant) part is actually reading them and understanding. Also, one must
understand that a theory is generally one man's effort to explain what he
_thinks_ may be happening over a very narrow range in a manner that is hard
to disprove.

by **John He** » Sat, 29 Jun 1996 04:00:00

>: >
>: > But it HAS been proven CFCs destroy the ozone layer. Have you read ANY
>: > scientific articles? Where does your pseudoinformation come from? And it
>: > was an international treaty, signed by President Bush and ratified by the
>: > Senate, that's banned R12. Not the EPA.
>:
>: This is not true. They only have theories to explain what they think is
>: happening. The EPA is the one that pushed for the ban on R-12. Arizon rocks
>: because they are defying the ban and will continue to produce R-12.

>1. A theory is the accepted scientific explanation for something. It is
>NOT just somebody's idea or guess. You might learn the meaning of terms
>before you use them. The theory about CFCs destroying the ozone layer is
>accepted by the scientific community, by the leaders of the western
>nations, by the Nobel Prize committee, etc. And because:

>2. There is overwhelming hard data supporting this theory. Data =
>facts. Something you wouldn't know anything about.
>:
>: If you want fact about this (R-12 I mean), talk with any

Civil/Environmental
a politician. You are very quick to flame what is basically a true statement,
that Al***writes fiction. While you were quick to denigrate others, you
have not presented _your_ credentials.

Theories are _not_ necessisarily true. They are simply valid so long as no
one can prove them wrong. The _problem_ with this is that the subject under
discussion seems to have no one trying to prove it wrong. Rather, those most
prominent supporters are spending huge sums of (our) money trying to prove it
right!

One of the first things ever learned is to try to break down the theory before
supporting it.

- Show quoted text -

by **John He** » Sun, 30 Jun 1996 04:00:00

>>:
>>: Actually, Jeffery... I hear this all the time...and please don't think
>I'm
>>: picking on you... But ALL of the refrigerants are ozone-safe. I find it
>>: amazing that you personally buy into the nonsense about them destroying
>the
>>: ozone hole. What's even more amazing is that, while it's taken 50 years
>of
>>: production, and massive releases to damage the ozone they say, supposedly
>>: it's already healing - and it's supposed to be due to the new laws.

>>Wrong. It's been proven scientifically (a term you don't seem familiar
>>with) that CFCs destroy the ozone layer. Gee, some fool could say the
>>earth is flat too. Doesn't make it so. You might read up on the science
>>of the situation before showing off your right-wing extremist views.

Of course, left wing views are better than right wing views, right? Your statement has
some fairly obvious errors. What has actually been proven is that under certain
circumstances, CFCs _can_ destroy ozone. It has been _theorized_ that CFCs
_may_ contribute to the size of the ozone hole (of course, it has also been theorized
that the size of the hole is related to sunspot activity, but that doesn't meet the criteria
for the great internationally acclaimed scientist, Algore).

- Show quoted text -

Actually, under the Constitution, it could be somewhat simpler than this. The
Constitution spells out what the Federal Government can do (which, bye the way is
somewhat less than what they are doing in many areas) and gives any remaining
powers to the state. In _my_ memory, Arizona is the first state in a long time to
exercise those Constitutional powers.

While not yet indicted, "Slick Willie can't be far behind".

by **John He** » Sun, 30 Jun 1996 04:00:00

>: If we followed the same rules for HIV as we follow for the EPA, we would
>: quarantine all HIV Positives. Note the double standare. For the EPA one must
>: prove that an item will not cause any harm to the environment (not that it
>: does). For HIV, the evidence is held that certain exposures are not dangerous
>: because it has not been proven to be dangerous (not that it has not been
>: proven NOT to be dangerous).

>But it HAS been proven CFCs destroy the ozone layer. Have you read ANY
>scientific articles? Where does your pseudoinformation come from? And it
>was an international treaty, signed by President Bush and ratified by the
>Senate, that's banned R12. Not the EPA.

Let's say this one more time. It has been proven that under certain rigid
circumstances, CFCs _can_ destroy ozone. It has been THEORIZED that it destroys
the ozone layer. A theory is not proven, it simply has not yet been _disproven_..
Were it _proven_ it would be _law_!

by **John He** » Sun, 30 Jun 1996 04:00:00

(Lloyd R. Parker) writes:
>: >
>: > >:
>: > >: 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.
>:
>: Nope, ozone depletion theory is NOT universally accepted as anything
>: more than a theory.

>It IS accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community. You
>should learn what "theory" means in science -- it is the currently
>accepted explanation of something. it does NOT mean a guess. And to
>forestall the inevitable, a theory cannot become a law. A law summarizes
>data; it doesn't explain. We have the theory of gravity, theory of
>evolution, quantum theory, etc. -- all scientifically accepted theories.
>The CFC-ozone theory is just as accepted.

You forgot "electron flow theory" and "Conventional current flow theory", both of
which explain the conduction of electricity (one explanation the exact opposite of the
other). Both are valid when taken within the parameters of the theory and both are
plausible explanations of how electrical currents flow. Neither can be proven wrong,
which is why both are valid theories, BUT, both _can't_ be correct!

- Show quoted text -

by **Martin Vog** » Sun, 30 Jun 1996 04:00:00

> >>snip<

> >> I'll have to agree with Gene, I work in the scientific community and
> >> there are alot of people that just want the money for their half baked
> >> ideas. Interesting thing about the ozone layer is that ham radio uses
> >> the ozone layer for bouncing signals off. Surprisingly the radio
> >> propagation is dependent on sun spot activity which is virtually nill
> >> right now, but in a few years propagation is supposed to increase
> >> because the sun spots will return. At the same time there are
> >> scientists who say the ozone hole will be reducing by the year 2000
> >> because of all the steps taken for CFC removal. Makes you wonder!

> >> Bud
> >> omne ignotum pro magnifico

> >I'll bet that you aren't a ham radio operator. We don't bounce radio
> >signals off the ozone layer. The E-layer, F-Layer, on and on and on,
> >all *ionized* layers of the atmosphere.

> >I've never heard of radio signals being bounced off the ozone layer!

> >-- Dan Meyer / N00KFB

> Exactly. The ionosphere acts as a refractor for HF frequencies as the 11
> year sunspot cycle affects it. (we will experience band openings on 10
> and 15 meters, and 6 as well in a few years) If you answer ozone layer on
> your FCC exam, that would be definitely the wrong answer.

The question is how to make some people believe it. "C'mon, an 11 year
cycle? C'mon, affected by sunspots? Yer pullin my leg." Hi hi, gotta be
one of the weirdest aspects of Ham Radio.

KE6DLT

by **Jerry Bransfor** » Sun, 30 Jun 1996 04:00:00

Ok guys, as an amateur radio type too, I hardly think anyone on this
automotive orientented distribution list really cares how radio waves
propagate. I suggest we stop this thread now or at least move it over
to the ham radio newsgroups where most everyone already knows the
subject too thoroughly.

--
Jerry Bransford
PP-ASEL, KC6TAY, C.A.P.
The Zen hotdog... make me one with everything!

by **Thomas Retkowsk** » Mon, 01 Jul 1996 04:00:00

> > I DO find myself questioning the recent "scientific" evidence that the Ozone
> > Layer is already healing itself due to the ban on CFCs (Which haven't even
> > been fully implemented, as yet).
> As you should since no one who actually understands the situation would
> write that the ozone layer is already healing itself. It's not. In fact,
> ozone depletion is expected to worsen for the next few years, and *then*
> begin a 40+ year recovery.

> What *has* been measured is an actual decrease in the concentration of one
> ozone-depleter, a solvent called methyl chloroform. In addition, there's
> been a slowing in the increase in CFC-11 and CFC-12 concentrations. Not a
> decrease, but a slowing in the increase. And these results are *directly*
> attributable to strong actions taken under the Montreal Protocol. Keep in
> mind that this wasn't a sudden cut from full-bore production to zip. It
> was a phaseout. The total production allowed in 1994 and 1995 was only
> 25% of that in 1986. You can read all about the phaseout in our fact
> sheet, at
> <URL:http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/phaseout/accfact.html>

> And, in fact, since the phaseout began in 1989, the US has never made the
> amount it was allowed under the Protocol. So the effects we're seeing now
> on ozone-depleting substance concentrations are the result of reduced
> production over the last 7 years.

> The reason it will take 40-50 years for a recovery is that CFC-12 has a
> lifetime of over 100 years. Other ozone-depleters live even longer. You
> can read all about the science of ozone depletion on our web site, too, at
> <URL:http://www.epa.gov/science/>

> And I suppose I need to keep reiterating the address for our fact sheet
> that lists several substitutes for CFC-12 in auto AC:
> <URL:http://www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/snap/macssubs.html>
> since several people still don't believe we're listing substitutes.

> Jeffrey Levy
> USEPAWhat does this have to do with R.A.S?

by **Wilso** » Mon, 01 Jul 1996 04:00:00

A theory is mere conjecture. It is not fact as you would like it to be. Speculation is
all the EPA has. The EPA can spout out as many numbers as they want. The fact of the
matter is, a CFC molecule is much heavier than oxygen. It can't travel that far. As for
engineers: they seem to know a hell of a lot more than you. It is easy to target
something that doesn't fight back. R-12 is harmless. R-134a is oil based. That has the
potential to do more harm than R-12. If you are so concerned about the environment, stop
driving your car. Talking about the evironment is one thing. Doing something is entirely
different. Since you are on the computer, you are polluting the environment. Electricity
is generated by burning coal. The EPA has many other things it could be doing. R-12 is
just another way to stick it to the American people for more cash.

by **Dustin Wolpof** » Mon, 01 Jul 1996 04:00:00

Isn't this guy a schmuck?

by **Mel Lamme** » Tue, 02 Jul 1996 04:00:00

Yep!!

>Isn't this guy a schmuck?

>> There has been NO hard evidence that CFC's cause any depletion in the
>ozone layer. The
>> state of Arizona is right on with defying that ban. They will continue
>to make it. Good
>> for them. All that ***I have been reading has been coming from the
>EPA. Those
>> panty-waist cissy boys want everyone to drive electric cars. Remember
>that something has
>> to generate that electricity. Burn that coal baby!

--Mel--Waving
96 SL2m LtGn/Gr AC CC ABS
TC AU PW PL KE T2W NG

by **Lloyd R. Park** » Tue, 02 Jul 1996 04:00:00

:
: Theories are _not_ necessisarily true.

Correct. But by the time an explanation has been accorded the status of
"theory," it has been tested numerous times and not disproven and so is
accepted as the correct explanation.

: They are simply valid so long as no
: one can prove them wrong. The _problem_ with this is that the subject under
: discussion seems to have no one trying to prove it wrong. Rather, those most
: prominent supporters are spending huge sums of (our) money trying to prove it
: right!

Wrong. As you just pointed out, you can never prove a theory right. The
money spent is on data collection (which is neutral), and all the data
collected supports the theory. Not one iota of data tends to disprove it.

:
: One of the first things ever learned is to try to break down the theory before
: supporting it.

No, one of the first things learned is collect data and look at it. If
it doesn't disprove a theory, it's foolish to say the theory is wrong and
even more foolish to cry that the theory hasn't been proven.

rec.autos.simulators

Legal Freon Substitute

Legal Freon Substitute

Legal Freon Substitute

Legal Freon Substitute

Legal Freon Substitute

Legal Freon Substitute

Legal Freon Substitute

Legal Freon Substitute

Legal Freon Substitute

Legal Freon Substitute

Legal Freon Substitute

Legal Freon Substitute

Legal Freon Substitute

Legal Freon Substitute

Legal Freon Substitute