Hello, Tim-

Since you're banned from the Debate echo, I'll reply here.

 RS>> First, we drove about 60 miles, between 65 and 70 mph.

 RS>> We refilled the gas tank, and drove the same distance, at
 RS>> 55 mph.

 RS>> It was at 55 we saved all the gas.

 bk>    F=MV^2

 RS>I'm afraid I'm really lousy at math, what does this mean?

 TR> F (Force) = M (Mass) times V (Velocity)squared!

 JH>Not only does BK have the formula wrong, it is not applicable to the
 JH>energy required to keep a vehicle is traveling at constant speed.  See
 JH>my post to Frank in this packet.

Reminder: the correct version of Klahn's formula is
Work = F x s = 1/2 mv^2 = kinetic energy

 TR> I realize that. The formula above is for a body moving at a constant
 TR> velocity, isn't it?

It is, but it is also correct for a given mass at a given instantaneous
velocity while it accelerates or decelerates.

 TR> The situation Sauer is talking about involves a time factor, and a non-
 TR> constant velocity.

To simplify the situation he presented, I think it is fair to assume
that the vehicle accelerated to highway speed, and pretty much held that
speed for the duration of the trip.  i.e. highway driving vs city
driving.

 TR> I think the above formula has to do with kinetic energy or some such.

Yes, the 1/2 mv^2 side of the equation is the kinetic energy of a mass
moving at a given speed.

 TR> Nothing to do with fuel savings at varying speeds in limited time
 TR> periods.

Keeping it simple, best assume the trip was basically all at highway
speeds.

But Sauer's assertion was nut-numbingly dumb when you look at it a bit.
See the made-up scenario I posted-  With a 16 gal tank and 30mpg at 55
mph, the vehicle would only get 10mpg at 65-70mpg in order to save 1/4
a tank of gas.  (using 6 gals one way and 2 gals the other). My point
was that _nobody_ believes such a vehicle exists.

- - -  JimH.

... A taxpayer voting for Obama is like a chicken voting for COL Sanders

--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.47