billvon 2,991 #76 October 19, 2011 >I did say pure science should be the driver Unless it conflicts with your views, at which point science is just an "estimated thingy" (your own words.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #77 October 19, 2011 Quote >I did say pure science should be the driver Unless it conflicts with your views, at which point science is just an "estimated thingy" (your own words.) There is no science in what you posted and I used the words in your post"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #78 October 19, 2011 >There is no science in what you posted Right. In RushMC workd, Harvard School of Public Health study = no science. Washington Times editorial = pure science. I hear Chuck E Cheese is having a special this week on medical advice. You should totally check them out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #79 October 19, 2011 Quote>There is no science in what you posted Right. In RushMC workd, Harvard School of Public Health study = no science. Washington Times editorial = pure science. I hear Chuck E Cheese is having a special this week on medical advice. You should totally check them out. Failed again"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #80 October 19, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYep, there is that estimated thingy again THIS is not an estimate. Those are strange particulates Not related though Related to post #46 "I wonder how many people living downwind of a wind turbine have DIED of emphysema. How many miners have died obtaining the fuel?" The part of the post that you conveniently snipped and ignored. I did not snip or ignore anything nice try though I am still waiting for the obit however I wonder how many minwrs have died getting the mineals for the turbines? I like how when you are loosing the debate you try and change the topic or direction Next They use turbines in coal fired power plants too. Lots of minerals go into them. So that dog won't hunt. According to the US Mine Safety and Health Administration, the death rate in COAL mining is 10x higher than in mining metals and other non-coal minerals.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #81 October 19, 2011 ***QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYep, there is that estimated thingy again THIS is not an estimate. Those are strange particulates Not related though Related to post #46 "I wonder how many people living downwind of a wind turbine have DIED of emphysema. How many miners have died obtaining the fuel?" The part of the post that you conveniently snipped and ignored. I did not snip or ignore anything nice try though I am still waiting for the obit however I wonder how many minwrs have died getting the mineals for the turbines? I like how when you are loosing the debate you try and change the topic or direction Next They use turbines in coal fired power plants too. Lots of minerals go into them. So that dog won't hunt. According to the US Mine Safety and Health Administration, the death rate in COAL mining is 10x higher than in mining metals and other non-coal minerals. 10x's higher than what? Give us a number"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #82 October 19, 2011 Quote>the problem is that the exhaust systems are actually $5000 to $10000 and >not affordable for someone to repair. And again EXACTLY the same things were said about catalytic converters, fuel injection, ECU's and oxygen sensors. Yet today repair shops deal almost exclusively with cars that have all that stuff. If you claimed "repair places can't handle pricey catalytic converters with their complex precious metal innards" you'd be laughed at. Diesel exhaust systems aren't $10,000. They cost a few thousand to car manufacturers (primarily due to the new catalysts) and are coming down fast as economies of scale kick in. The Golf diesel costs about $4000 more than its gasoline twin, and about half of that is exhaust system. The Audi A3 diesel costs about $1500 more, and the BMW 335 diesel costs $1600 more. sorry but the exhaust systems ARE right now costing that much. the new gdi turbo units are much more expensive than stanard cars and the diesels are the most expensive. This is not saying it "will cost" alot but is actually right now costing alot. the new chevy GDI engine is 10 hours labor to replace 1 injector. try telling a custome it will cost $1000 to replace an injector, this again is not speculation but fact as the car is right now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #83 October 19, 2011 Quote***QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYep, there is that estimated thingy again THIS is not an estimate. Those are strange particulates Not related though Related to post #46 "I wonder how many people living downwind of a wind turbine have DIED of emphysema. How many miners have died obtaining the fuel?" The part of the post that you conveniently snipped and ignored. I did not snip or ignore anything nice try though I am still waiting for the obit however I wonder how many minwrs have died getting the mineals for the turbines? I like how when you are loosing the debate you try and change the topic or direction Next They use turbines in coal fired power plants too. Lots of minerals go into them. So that dog won't hunt. According to the US Mine Safety and Health Administration, the death rate in COAL mining is 10x higher than in mining metals and other non-coal minerals. 10x's higher than what? Correction - should have written 50% higher.Quote Give us a number 42... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #84 October 19, 2011 >sorry but the exhaust systems ARE right now costing that much. Really? Wow, those car companies must be really noble, giving you a $10,000 exhaust system for $1500. But that might be a great business plan for you. Buy wrecks for $4000, pull the exhaust system out and resell it for $8000! >the new chevy GDI engine is 10 hours labor to replace 1 injector. I recall an older (mid-80's) gasoline powered car that needed to have the engine pulled to replace one of the spark plugs. Boxters need the engine mounts disconnected and the engine lowered to change the plugs - that's 3 or 4 hours of labor. Some GM, Ford and Chrysler late model front engine V6 cars/mini vans need the alternator removed to get at the spark plugs. Some late-2000 GM's need the intake manifold removed. How can gasoline ever compete? Do you want to be the one to tell a customer that it's going to cost $500 to replace a spark plug? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #85 October 19, 2011 QuoteSome late-2000 GM's need the intake manifold removed. How can gasoline ever compete? Do you want to be the one to tell a customer that it's going to cost $500 to replace a spark plug? So did my Mercury Sable, and it cost more than $500... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #86 October 19, 2011 Quote>sorry but the exhaust systems ARE right now costing that much. Really? Wow, those car companies must be really noble, giving you a $10,000 exhaust system for $1500. But that might be a great business plan for you. Buy wrecks for $4000, pull the exhaust system out and resell it for $8000! >the new chevy GDI engine is 10 hours labor to replace 1 injector. I recall an older (mid-80's) gasoline powered car that needed to have the engine pulled to replace one of the spark plugs. Boxters need the engine mounts disconnected and the engine lowered to change the plugs - that's 3 or 4 hours of labor. Some GM, Ford and Chrysler late model front engine V6 cars/mini vans need the alternator removed to get at the spark plugs. Some late-2000 GM's need the intake manifold removed. How can gasoline ever compete? Do you want to be the one to tell a customer that it's going to cost $500 to replace a spark plug? check out the new ford and dodge diesel trucks and mercedes cars, then get back to me. as far as the injector on the GM V6 engine, what you talk about was an isolated engine car combination, this is on every gm v6 gdi in every car. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #87 October 19, 2011 Quote>sorry but the exhaust systems ARE right now costing that much. Really? Wow, those car companies must be really noble, giving you a $10,000 exhaust system for $1500. But that might be a great business plan for you. Buy wrecks for $4000, pull the exhaust system out and resell it for $8000! >the new chevy GDI engine is 10 hours labor to replace 1 injector. I recall an older (mid-80's) gasoline powered car that needed to have the engine pulled to replace one of the spark plugs. Boxters need the engine mounts disconnected and the engine lowered to change the plugs - that's 3 or 4 hours of labor. Some GM, Ford and Chrysler late model front engine V6 cars/mini vans need the alternator removed to get at the spark plugs. Some late-2000 GM's need the intake manifold removed. How can gasoline ever compete? Do you want to be the one to tell a customer that it's going to cost $500 to replace a spark plug? the 2010 ford diesel truck particulate filter is listed at 1512.67 with 1.3 hours labor, the converter is 1115.39 and 2 hours labor to replace those 2 parts installed is 2937.00 plus tax and that is only 2 parts of the exhaust. keep spreading poor information to make the green life look so good to someone that bought this truck used and now needs to repair the exhaust to pass emissions or not drive the truck and loose his job. edited to add, I forgot about the $898.87 sugested list muffler for that ford. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #88 October 19, 2011 Quote So we have a consensus that there is no "best" source of energy. Actually, we do; gravity. quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #89 October 19, 2011 Quote Quote So we have a consensus that there is no "best" source of energy. Actually, we do; gravity. no gravity is not a source of energy unless it takes no energy to raise it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #90 October 19, 2011 QuoteI did say pure science should be the driver Again, I hate to parse it out, but pure science cannot be the driver. Applied science and technology have to be the driver. We've got pure science that tells us that antimatter and matter colliding results in pure energy with no waste - 100% efficiency. Applied science tells us that an antimatter reactor can get enough power out of a golf ball to supply California's electricity needs for a few months and leave no pollution except pure energy - which is harvested. That's where the problem comes in - technology. Where are we going to harvest or create this antimatter in large enough portions to make it feasible. There's been progress. Antimatter used to cost $62.5 trillion per gram in 1999. Now it's at about $1.5 trillion per ounce and figures to get cheaper with a new particle accelerator being built outside of Chicago. But then there's the technology for storing the stuff. Containing it. The practical issue of containing something that by physical law obliterates itself and any matter it contacts is easy to see. So applied science and technology must drive the quest. There have been times when policy drove technology (take a look at the moon landings). So if there is a national and global will to do it, then perhaps it can be done. But right now, with the economy as it is and governments around the world saddled with debt, the pragmatic considerations look doubtful for anything in the near future. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #91 October 19, 2011 >as far as the injector on the GM V6 engine, what you talk about was an >isolated engine car combination . . . Ding ding ding! You got it! It was a silly design; they fixed it (well, at least in some cases.) Now, we've established that, on some cars, it's hard to change the spark plugs. Next question for you - how often do you have to change the spark plugs on diesels? >the 2010 ford diesel truck particulate filter is listed at 1512.67 with 1.3 hours labor Yep. And a brand new factory Toyota Highlander catalytic converter (gas version of course) is $951. Your point is? You're trying to fight progress, and that never really turns out well in the long run. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #92 October 19, 2011 QuoteQuoteYep, there is that estimated thingy again THIS is not an estimate. Massey Energy again... yup..... just the cost of doing business THEIR WAY Isolated incident right Rush?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #93 October 19, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteHow much of that are you subsidizing with your two vehicles and five boats? The VW TDI that gets 50 +MPG? I don't know... since most of it is bio diesel.. you tell me Another FAIL from another fringe rightie.. OH MY OMG, to bad that you know so little about this. We could have 50-60 mpg on diesels right now if it wasn't for the greenies out there. the diesel polutants in the form of nox (causing smog) is the the reason why we don't have the fuel mileage right now. the only way to rid nox and get 50-60 mpg is to put $10,000 exhaust systems on those cars. many diesel are going to these exhaust systems but it is making them unaffordable. DUUUUUUD I have been driving VW diesels since I was in college.... my old early 80's VW Bunny Diesel.... 45 to 50 MPG even back then in the mid eighties. U should learn something about them... since they have been right there under your nose... for 30+ years... oh.. and no they do not need special exhausts to pass emissions so PUHLEEEEZE don't try to trot that lame horse out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #94 October 19, 2011 QuoteQuoteI did say pure science should be the driver Again, I hate to parse it out, but pure science cannot be the driver. Applied science and technology have to be the driver. We've got pure science that tells us that antimatter and matter colliding results in pure energy with no waste - 100% efficiency. Applied science tells us that an antimatter reactor can get enough power out of a golf ball to supply California's electricity needs for a few months and leave no pollution except pure energy - which is harvested. That's where the problem comes in - technology. Where are we going to harvest or create this antimatter in large enough portions to make it feasible. There's been progress. Antimatter used to cost $62.5 trillion per gram in 1999. Now it's at about $1.5 trillion per ounce and figures to get cheaper with a new particle accelerator being built outside of Chicago. But then there's the technology for storing the stuff. Containing it. The practical issue of containing something that by physical law obliterates itself and any matter it contacts is easy to see. So applied science and technology must drive the quest. There have been times when policy drove technology (take a look at the moon landings). So if there is a national and global will to do it, then perhaps it can be done. But right now, with the economy as it is and governments around the world saddled with debt, the pragmatic considerations look doubtful for anything in the near future. Ok for the sake of words I will give you this but know By pure science I mean making decision and recommendations based on solid research In the end, this does not describe AWG climate science"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #95 October 20, 2011 Quote I have been driving VW diesels since I was in college.... my old early 80's VW Bunny Diesel.... 45 to 50 MPG even back then in the mid eighties. U should learn something about them... since they have been right there under your nose... for 30+ years... oh.. and no they do not need special exhausts to pass emissions so PUHLEEEEZE don't try to trot that lame horse out. The 80s diesels, esp the Mercedes ones, were filthy creatures. And until just a couple years ago, none were for sale in California due to emission requirements. Now we have the VWs and a few others - I keep hoping Subaru will bring their boxer diesel here. There definitely were hurdles to clear to bring them back. But I think a considerable chunk of the cost differential is due to demand, not the tech required. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #96 October 20, 2011 QuoteQuote I have been driving VW diesels since I was in college.... my old early 80's VW Bunny Diesel.... 45 to 50 MPG even back then in the mid eighties. U should learn something about them... since they have been right there under your nose... for 30+ years... oh.. and no they do not need special exhausts to pass emissions so PUHLEEEEZE don't try to trot that lame horse out. The 80s diesels, esp the Mercedes ones, were filthy creatures. And until just a couple years ago, none were for sale in California due to emission requirements. Now we have the VWs and a few others - I keep hoping Subaru will bring their boxer diesel here. There definitely were hurdles to clear to bring them back. But I think a considerable chunk of the cost differential is due to demand, not the tech required. I had a 1982 300 D back in the day as well... funny thing.... SOOT came out... looked bad.. but never did it fail the DEQ for emissions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #97 October 20, 2011 Quote Quote Quote So we have a consensus that there is no "best" source of energy. Actually, we do; gravity. no gravity is not a source of energy unless it takes no energy to raise it. Gravity is the main known source of energy in the universe. I can absolutely guarantee no star would be able to operate without it.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #98 October 20, 2011 Kalland, why don't you give your buddy Quade a quick physics lesson. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #99 October 20, 2011 Diesels should be required to have the exhaust mounted right on top of the hood, so the driver has to get the full blast of crap that spews out when they accelerate/high load conditions. I know, some will claim that the newer compression ignition engines will not do that...but I've seen plenty of VW TDIs doing it, they didn't look old or abused. Diesel engines throw belch out crap and their drivers should get the full dose.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #100 October 20, 2011 More on your points http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/19/gop-lawmakers-challenge-white-house-on-scientific-misconduct/"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
