On 09-04-08, JIM HOLSONBACK said to TIM RICHARDSON:



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


I didn't notice where the conversation was taking place. I thought we were in
Ceppa's echo.


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.


JH>Reminder: the correct version of Klahn's formula is
JH>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?


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


By `formula above' I was refering to the formula Klahn tossed out there in the
beginning.


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


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


If his `friend' were using a `cruise control', the results might be more
acceptable.


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


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


And the speed is `constant'.


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


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


Given a distance traveled, a steady velocity of travel, and ignoring up and
down hill motion.


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


*Nor* does this latest of Sauer's *friends*!
1

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


The democrats got hit by a hurricane last night:


Hurricane Sarah!


---
*Durango b301 #PE*