Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 60872	2005-08-16 07:14:00	Carless Days.	Elephant (599)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
381626	2005-08-17 11:57:00	I'll conceed the practicalities of the idea - leaving aside the impact on vehicle acceleration and engine strain, any physical inhibiter can be bypassed by those with technical knowledge - Of course, in an ideal world, where most people have vehicle speed limiters, those who have bypassed them would become immediately apparent to law enforcement when they used there unlocked resources. As you progress the concept, though, it becomes intriguingly similar to the situation with handguns...but that's another story. Are you arguing for speed, or control of one's acceleration? The two go hand in hand, but you can accelerate quickly without breaking the law. If you progress your concept, one could argue that people should all wear tracking devices to determine where exactly you are at any given time. Those without such devices could be deemed to be "breaking the law" and only up to no good. Pre-crime control and all that. Lo.	Lohsing (219)
381627	2005-08-17 21:39:00	Personally I think its past time we looked at alternative fuels. I know NZ used to use LPG and CNG (gutless as they were but still an alternative).. where are they now? Maybe an urban myth, but aren't there supposedly engines created that can run on hydrogen, or water? Where are they? I even heard yesterday on the radio of this guy who has found a way to get an engine to run 250 miles on a gallon of petrol. The DJ reckoned (tongue in cheek) that once the petrol companies found out where he was he probably had 48hours to live. Time to find our next fuel source (or start walking :yuck:)	Myth (110)
381628	2005-08-17 22:03:00	Terry.... I guess we should agree to disagree. Faith? I must have more faith in human ingenuity than you do. I thought I was the biggest Pessimist in NZ. Either I am an Optimist or you are playing devils Advocate?? PJ	Poppa John (284)
381629	2005-08-17 22:13:00	Are you arguing for speed, or control of one's acceleration? The two go hand in hand, but you can accelerate quickly without breaking the law. If you progress your concept, one could argue that people should all wear tracking devices to determine where exactly you are at any given time. Those without such devices could be deemed to be "breaking the law" and only up to no good. Pre-crime control and all that. Lo. As I said, acceleration is another story - and you're absolutely right - accelerating quickly is not legal (though sustained loss of traction sometimes is - depends on whether you're aged between 15 and 24, and driving a Mazda Familia DOHC turbo or similar). Funny though, because it seems to me that if you hit a pedestrian accelerating from 0 - 50km/h in the space of two seconds (for example), you would cause more damage than if the car took 2-4x the time to reach the same speed. (there's probably a formula relating speed, acceleration and force, but it's been far too long since I studied physics to recall the relationships in a formula). But I'm not pretending for one moment that this idea (or any idea discussed in this sub-thread) could work - what I'm interested in is the justification for cars that can travel at 200km/h etc.. beyond the standard "freedom" arguments (I'm not denying the exhiliration of travelling at speed). To say that better acceleration is found by increasing the top-end speed of cars may be correct from a technical perspection - though I wonder if that approach is the most efficient... I'm not entirely convinced that a car manufacturer couldn't build a car that accelerated adequately, but went no faster than, say, 120km/h, rather than relying on the total enigine output to provide the muscle in the front end... [rant ends]	Lizard (2409)
381630	2005-08-17 22:23:00	No-one liked the idea of removing access to the roads to push people into public transport so how about putting toll stations everywhere at about $10 to get past.	Rob99 (151)
381631	2005-08-17 23:34:00	. . . . Terry . . . . . . . . . I cannot agree with you . There has to be some kind of "Propulsion Fuel" to take over WHEN oil as a fuel runs out . . . . Why? That is unsubstantiated faith, belief without proof ;) . . . . Terry . . . . I guess we should agree to disagree . Faith? I must have more faith in human ingenuity than you do . I thought I was the biggest Pessimist in NZ . Either I am an Optimist or you are playing devils Advocate?? PJ . . . . . I like being inconsistent, it means people have a bit of difficulty knowing where you stand . But it has been said that faith moves mountains, so if it can do that, then surely it could move a piddling little car? :thumbs: The repeated beliefs that big businesses are hiding revoltionary inventions are in the same category as the urban myths we see over and over on the internet . About 60 years ago, my older brother tried to tell me that someone had invented an everlasting light bulb, but that the idea had been bought out and suppressed . That story had been doing the rounds ever since the days of Edison, no doubt . We had the example just a few years ago in New Zealand of a crank trying to convince the public he had an engine that ran on water . The principal was to use the generator to electrolyse the water into hydrogen and oxygen which was then burnt in the engine . One the engine was running from an initial supply of oxygen and hydrogen,the running engine drove the generator which then electrolysed more water, and so on ad-infinitum . The con-man even convinced the non-scientific media journalists of the concept of perpetual motion . Edit: the term con-man is too strong, self deluded fool would be more appropriate .	Terry Porritt (14)
381632	2005-08-18 01:00:00	Hydogen fusion maybe the only hope, but it is remote. The power produced from that could be used to produce hydogen as an engine fuel. The notion that big business has over the years bought up world shattering inventions and suppressed them is a farcical idea, belonging as I say in the realm of little green men and UFOs :) Good post Terry. Alcohol mixes have been used in the United States for 25 years but still haven't caught on. The problem is that they aren't currently efficent. It takes energy (fuel) to work the ground, plant the crop, spray weeds, harvest the crop, transport it to the fermentation plant, heat up the wort, and distill the alcohol. Lovely idea but unless we go back to horse and cart farming, it isn't viable. Hydrogen vehicles are promoted as the next big thing. Essentially hydrogen is burned instead of petrol vapour. But what is overlooked is the energy cost of obtaining the hydrogen in the first place. The easiest way is to split it out of water using electricity. If electricity was free, this would work well. Unfortunately it isn't. Hydrogen and oxygen are quite fond of each other, so disasociating them requires a lot of electricity. And cost. So while the idea works, it isn't energy efficent in any sense. Nuclear fission is workable - but we won't even let a nuclear powered boat in, so not much chance of that here. Fairly difficult at present anyway. Fusion which is the nearly complete destruction of matter is ideal. Lots of energy. However it only exists in the sun and for a few millisecs in laboratories. Antimatter is the ultimate. A very big bang and complete destruction of matter. CERN have created and contained antimatter for 3 minutes so this idea isn't as far fetched as it might sound.	Winston001 (3612)
381633	2005-08-18 01:36:00	If energy/oil consumption is cut down drastically, there is probably enough oil to last a very long time - perhaps longer than all of our lifetimes. But this has to be a complete approach - everything from alternative fuels, engine technologies, civil design, regulations and the free market to education. As for motor vehicles, people will only use alternatives if they are given valid alternatives. Build bicycle-only pathways and the bicycle-riders will come. Build moped-only zones, and see an explosion in moped use. Build a reliable and fast transit system and they will come. Build lots of roads and the cars will come, including the fast, noisy petrol-heads. What else should you expect?	vinref (6194)
381634	2005-08-18 02:00:00	. . . one could argue that people should all wear tracking devices to determine where exactly you are at any given time . Those without such devices could be deemed to be "breaking the law" and only up to no good . Pre-crime control and all that . Lo . It's coming, sooner than you might think . Soon all cell phones will be required to have GPS chips (in the US first, probably) on the pretext that this will enable emergency services to locate people immediately when they call "911" . And, of course, this won't be abused . ;) Soon visitors to the US will not only be fingerprinted, they'll have to have a cell phone with GPS, in case they overthrow the Constutution . Brazil still grows crops to produce ethanol to fuel cars . They build cars to run on ethanol . NZ grows some crops to produce industrial ethanol . That is put in vodka and gin to fuel car drivers . London has a "congestion tax" by which car drivers entering the central area pay (I think) £5 per day . This was, as usual, going to cause the end of civilisation as we know it . It didn't . The basic problem with building more and more motorways so people can get from point A to point B with maximum speed is "what do you do with the cars when they get to B?" . Better motorways (to stop congestion) won't save Auckland or Wellington . For me, every day is a "Careless" day . I have a bicycle .	Graham L (2)
381635	2005-08-18 02:57:00	Brazil still grows crops to produce ethanol to fuel cars . They build cars to run on ethanol . NZ grows some crops to produce industrial ethanol . That is put in vodka and gin to fuel car drivers . Brilliant . :thumbs: Have many people watched traffic for a longish period of time, specifically rush hour traffic . When ever I have done this I've noticed that less than 1/10 of the cars actually have more than one person in the car . There's a bus going down the road as well (half empty) . To top it off, the people on the bus hop off in town and walk across the road to work . The car drivers have to park quite a distance a way (carpark building, or a few blocks from town) and walk the rest of the way to work . Cars a pointless for ~80% of the times they are used . Of course I beat the cars into town as well (on my bicycle) .	Jeremy (1197)
1 2 3 4 5 6