8181Views115Replies

Author Options:

Students Build Car that Gets 2752.3 MPG Answered

Students at Cal Poly have made a car that gets 2752.3 mpg. It has three wheels and moves one person along at just 30 mph, but it can drive most of the way across the U.S. on one gallon of gas.
"The 96 pound car has three wheels, a drag coefficient of 0.12, a top speed of 30 MPH, and a modified 3 horsepower Honda 50cc four-stroke engine. It originally clocked in at 861 MPG and has been continuously tweaked to achieve the mileage we see today."
Link

50 Replies

user
freakshow17 (author)2010-03-16

If college students can make a vehicle that travels 30 mph for 2700 miles on a single gallon of gas, why can't someone (a paid professional) make a regular street legal vehicle that travels 70 mph on 100 or 200 miles per gallon?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
jmacman12 (author)freakshow172010-03-29

'cause gas drives the economy, without the need for it, the price deteriorates and then companies lose money and lay people off and the next thing you know we'll be in another recession. Im sure they're able but simply "don't" thats why cars these days are starting to have better and better milage, until one day we will have reached that 100-200 mpg your talking about. Introducing it all now wouldnt benefit anyones economy.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
zach s (author)freakshow172010-03-25

All of the safety requirements ruin the mpg by adding weight

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
carpe_noctem (author)zach s2010-03-26

Those same safety features are what make cycling so dangerous. lolz

For real though, just ride a bike if you don't want to be burning gas.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
TheBatchies (author)2010-03-11

1. Hmm, well, if there are more humans, it only makes sense that there's more CO2 because that's what they breathe out! Crazy, huh? I learned that in 2nd grade.
2. A small "glitch" in a satellite has actually showed the arctic with 500,000 more square miles than previously estimated.
3. Polar bears have grown in population from 5,000 in 1970 to 25,000 in the later yeras.
4. Climate change is occuring. The globe is COOLING.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
TheBatchies (author)TheBatchies2010-03-11

# 2 & 3 Revised:

2. 5000,000 square miles of ice, roughly the size of the State of California.
3. Since 1970, the polar bear population has multiplied by five.

Sorry, but I'm afraid you are too open minded. Your brain seems to have actually fallen out of your head.

But, wait; you really can't see the irony in your own beliefs? OUCH!!

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
gruffy (author)TheBatchies2010-03-11

did you learn that C02 is a greenhouse gas? and that greenhouse gasses are what capture the heat of the sun to make our atmosphere livable?

Did you also learn about the rapid growth of industry which basically ran on greenhouse gasses?

the amount of C02 a person releases is about 1 kg each day. Each gallon of gasoline you burn is releasing somewhere between 15 and 17 pounds of C02.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/images/polarbear/schliebe_03.gif sea ice graph made by the government.

no please fill me in on the irony.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
TheBatchies (author)gruffy2010-03-12

I DID learn CO2 is a greenhouse gas. And that if I don't become one with mother nature and stop driving my car I'll have to live on Mars. Oh wait, I forgot; they canceled the space program because it costed too much. Oh well, at least the stimulus package worked out quite nicely...


...Not.

Al Gore and Obama are hypocrites. If THEY really believed in AGW, would they drive fuel-guzzling LIMOS to Copenhagen? Would it have been so cold out that they had to leave early? Twice? Would the average temperature be going DOWN each year? Would Michael Mann be in jail (okay, maybe not, but he should be)? DID CLINTON ONLY INHALE?!

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
zach s (author)TheBatchies2010-03-25

why does this even involve polotics?????/

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
kelseymh (author)TheBatchies2010-03-12

And ad hominem fallacies prove your point how?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
TheBatchies (author)kelseymh2010-03-13

Well, telling me my "beloved George Bush" believed in glabal warming (which I really do not care at all) spurred me to post that.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
kelseymh (author)TheBatchies2010-03-13

Really.  Where precisely (which forum topic, and the datestamp of the comment) did I say that?  Or is that another one of your "facts"?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
TheBatchies (author)kelseymh2010-03-13

Apparently, that comment was deleted or was posted on another forum, but I'll find it. You'll see.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Lithium Rain (author)TheBatchies2010-03-15

Hahahahahahahaha. Your tone is so stereotypically defiant as to make one suspect we are being trolled. (And if it was deleted, how do you propose to find it?)

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
TheBatchies (author)Lithium Rain2010-03-16

 If it was deleted, how COULD I find it? Man, my friend was right about you people!

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
gruffy (author)TheBatchies2010-03-16

yeah i'm out. this guy's trollin hard and rambling too.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Lithium Rain (author)TheBatchies2010-03-16

Um, that's...that's my point.

You said "apparently it was deleted. . . .but I'll find it. You'll see." You said it, not me.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
TheBatchies (author)Lithium Rain2010-03-16

 Hmm, yes, I see your point. However, there's this brand new concept called "Sarcasm," which is when you say something when you really mean the opposite, or to inflict "Humor," another cool tool from the English language.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humour

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Lithium Rain (author)TheBatchies2010-03-16

No...I'm afraid that's not what you mean. Sarcasm expresses contempt. I think you mean irony.


Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
TheBatchies (author)TheBatchies2010-03-16

 I'll find it all right...

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
duder145 (author)TheBatchies2010-03-22

 thebatchies, breathing has no effect on CO2 emission, Kelseymh is right

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
kelseymh (author)TheBatchies2010-03-11

You need to learn how to use numbers. 

1.  The CO2 emissions from breathing are negligible, and aren't part of the discussion of anthropogenic climate change.  The emissions due to burning fuels -- both fossil fuels and wood or other plant-derived products -- are the dominant source of anthropogenic CO2.  Also, other anthropogenic gases, such as methane, have several orders of magnitude more "greenhouse effect" (IR reflection) than CO2 itself.

2.  You can apparently find deniers' Web sites, but you can't even get their own numbers correct.  The alleged difference in satellite measurements is 193,000 square miles, not 500,000.  You should learn the difference between miles and kilometers.  Now, the total area covered by the Arctic Ocean is 5.5 million square miles.  So that "error" is 3.5%.

3.  The "growth" in polar bear population you cite has only occurred since the signing of the 1973 convention on their preservation.  So your data clearly demonstrates the importance and benefit of conservation efforts.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
TheBatchies (author)kelseymh2010-03-12

1. Natural events such as volcanic eruptions and solar flares produce more CO2 in a couple hours than we have in... forever. If all we did was introduce a new type of "animal," that shouldn't be enough to cause the earth to go into a state of emergency within 200-100 years.

2. Even NASA mixes up metric and english standard. Either way, that's almost 200,000. Oops.

3. I don't understand the conservations efforts. If they worked, good, but there was no point to them. "Thy will be done" means that what God has planned is what is going to take place, don't try to undo what God had planned -- you can't do it and that only digs your hole deeper.

4. Climategate placed their instruments near largely populated cities and got their famous tree ring data from trees on the edge of forests where they fried in the sun all day. They even admitted that they had played a big April-Fool's-Day joke on everybody, and that was before the president of Climategate stepped down after ~15 years of his life working their. Sorry, anthropogenic global warming/climate change is no longer a belief. It is only as real as your dreams. They seem so vivid until you slap yourself and come to your senses.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Rotten194 (author)TheBatchies2010-03-15

"1. Natural events such as volcanic eruptions and solar flares produce more CO2 in a couple hours than we have in... forever"
http://www.grist.org/article/volcanoes-emit-more-co2-than-humans

"The fact of the matter is, the sum total of all CO2 out-gassed by active volcanoes amounts to about 1/150th of anthropogenic emissions."

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
TheBatchies (author)Rotten1942010-03-15

1. Ever heard of the "Ring of Fire?" ;)

2. My point was that natural disasters do more damage than we do. Notice how as far as we know, dinosaurs didn't drive cars, but it only took one day and they were doomed forever because of an asteroid. Which by the way is perfectly normal. Yellowstone National Park has already wiped out most of the wildlife there from years and years ago because of a supereruption. The sun uses more energy every second than we could in billions of years. All of these factors have shaped the earth in some way. These massive events that do colossal amounts of damage to our planet. Asteroids, supervolcanoes, solar flares, earthquakes, comets, ect. If aliens came to earth, we'd be like insects on a rock. Even if cars "breathe" out more CO2 than humans, it's nothing compared to the natural events that literally changed the world. We breathe out CO2, the polar bears do, the pandas do, the whales do, ect. It's simply common sense. Trees breathe in CO2, and there are probably more in my front yard than people and cars combined. A real graph (something like the infamous "hockey stick" graph except real) shows that even as CO2 levels rise, global temperatures continue to plummet. We have just been in a mini ice age. In the 1970s, the AGW scientists said ~~"The sky is falling!"~~ I mean, "The globe is cooling!." Now, "The globe is cooling!" Now, it is nothing more than an unpopular fad. People who still believe are like the Japanese from WWII who still think the war is going on and are waiting for further instructions. Ain't happening. Sorry.

In sum, all cars are are special animals, let's say that's a metaphor. There is absolutely no way that AGW is real. Back when it was (for some reason) popular belief, what was the solution? Higher taxes! Yay! Oh wait...


So yeah.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Rotten194 (author)TheBatchies2010-03-15

The Ring of Fire doesn't matter, the hard fact is that all the C02 out-gassed by volcanoes in a year is about 1/150th of anthropogenic emissions. It doesn't matter if there are 15 active volcanoes or 15,000, that's how much C02 is outgassed by volcanoes. Point me to any site saying natural disasters significantly contribute to global warming, otherwise you sound like you're making this all up. For comparison, humans emit about 27 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases a year.

One more thing. In case you bring up ocean absorption (someone will, thinking they are so smart) I will point you to this video: wakeupfreakout.org/film/tipping.html. in fact, it's a good thing to watch if you talk about global warming at ALL.


Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
TheBatchies (author)Rotten1942010-03-16

 I didn't say asteroids contributed to global warming. YOU said that, not me. I said an asteroid will take away 1/2 of the earth, and you're more worried about little puffs o' smoke getting stuck in the atmosphere. I have all my sites listed down there (down is the opposite of up, if you were wondering), and YOU were also the one talking about ocean absorption. Not me. Asteroids (see below) make big craters and wipe out 70% of everything. Not conservatives. Only Obama and liberals could eliminate terrorists and racial profiling (Hmm, offend somebody, or kill dozens/hundreds?) and turn conservatives into a threat.

Asteroids:
web.ukonline.co.uk/a.buckley/dino.htm

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
kelseymh (author)TheBatchies2010-03-16

You really need to learn something about numbers.  Asteroid impacts (any in the last 2.8 billion years) make really tiny craters on the scale of the planet.  The largest known impact crater on Earth is only about 250 km in diameter, compared to the 40,000 km circumference of the earth, and only a few kilometers deep.  If we assume the entire volume of material was vaporized (a stupid assumption, but it gives the largest possible value), that's about 150,000 km3 of crust removed.

The volume of the earth is 1 trillion cubic kilometers (that's 1,000,000,000,000).  I'd like to point out that 150 billionths is just a bit smaller than one half.

Asteroids wipe out a tiny fraction of the total life on earth.  The Chixulub event presumably wiped out lots of big animals, and disrupted the food chain, but no where near 70% of all life.  The largest mass extinction in history, the Permian-Triassic event, wiped out 96% of  large animal species, but probably no more than 30 or 40% of macroscopic life (and didn't touch bacteria hardly at all).

And again, how exactly do you ad hominem attacks support whatever point you're trying to make?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
TheBatchies (author)kelseymh2010-03-17

What is it that you don't get about me exaggerating about "70% of life?" I am so bored off you people. Besides, a real debate would have, say, an equal ratio? It's like 5:1 with you guys having five. Give me some people who are a bit older and more aware of reality, and we'll shut you down, ok? Sound fair?

Anyways, hear about them two gamma burster stars ready to blast us with an intense ray of radiation? That will do more damage than a little car put-outting its merry little way to Stop&Shop.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
kelseymh (author)TheBatchies2010-03-17

When you exaggerate, you make it clear that either you don't know, or don't care, about factual information in a factual discussion.  When you bring in pointless ad hominem attacks, you demonstrate that you are not interested in a discussion at all, merely name calling. 

You've done a great job of using "older people" in your arguments, since you merely copy what older people have written for you, instead of looking at actual data and forming your own conclusions.

Now you're going to claim to know something about astrophysics?  Why don't you provide a citation for your imagined "two gamma burster stars"?  Our Galaxy is not of the appropriate type to contain possible GRB progenitors, nor do we have any known criteria to actually identify any individual star as a future GRB, at least not on timescales shorter than millions of years.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Rotten194 (author)TheBatchies2010-03-16

What is this.

While reading this comment, you degenerated from asteroids (which I never mentioned) to down vs up (thanks, I had no idea), to insulting liberals and ripping on Obama.

Ok, arguments destruction time.

Asteroids destroying half the Earth- What. Kelseymh already dealt with that though.

Puff of smoke- A 27 billion ton puff of smoke, yes

All your sites- I see one, that talks about dinosaurs? Explain please.

Oceans- I mentioned it to head it off at the pass, and to point you to a useful video about global warming. Did you watch it?

Asteroids wiping out about 70% of everything- What is this. Name one extinction that got CLOSE to this.

Not conservatives- This was random and made absolutely no sense, so I'm ignoring it.

Obama eliminating terrorists- Now, I don't always agree with the guy (So spending a few billion on human spaceflight to the moon and mars in unreasonable, but a few billion wasted on the Air Force's new plane is fine?), but how is eliminating terrorists bad? Or you made it sound like a bad thing.

Eliminating racial profiling- Studies showed racial profiling was horrendously ineffective and a waste of time, You are better off (like they do now) with general scanning and random checks. My rough estimate is that considering Islam is one of the world's major religions, I would guess less than 0.01% of muslims are trying to hurt someone. Grow up, not every Muslim is a terrorist.

Basically, what the heck did that comment and this discussion have in common?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
kelseymh (author)Rotten1942010-03-16

You asked, "Basically, what the heck did that comment and this discussion have in common"

Basically, TheBatchies is doing nothing more than parroting what he reads on a variety of shrill right-wing opinion Web sites.  None of them have any real connection to one another, or to reality.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
TheBatchies (author)kelseymh2010-03-17

Wow, I was just about to say the same about you! By the way, I made a forum so that we wouldn't litter this nice one. Save the planet! I mean, uh, screw that, the forums for cripe sake!

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
lemonie (author)TheBatchies2010-03-16

What do you mean by "Only Obama and liberals could eliminate terrorists and racial profiling"?

L

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
TheBatchies (author)lemonie2010-03-17

Ugh, I was editing that comment, and bits and scraps were not meant to be there. That was one messed up comment, I have to say.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
TheBatchies (author)Rotten1942010-03-16

This argument is pointless. In the real world, this debate has already been settled. And we won.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
gmoon (author)TheBatchies2010-03-16

Ah, so facts are pointless?

You gifted--at hyperbole and self-delusion.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
kelseymh (author)TheBatchies2010-03-15

You can't make a point with lies or mistakes.  And just because you believe "there is absolutely no way" doesn't make it true. 

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
TheBatchies (author)kelseymh2010-03-16

 Exactly. Think about that.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
kelseymh (author)TheBatchies2010-03-16

I have, and I do.  And I find your choice of avatar wonderfully appropriate.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
TheBatchies (author)kelseymh2010-03-17

It's supposed to inflict "humor."

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
kelseymh (author)TheBatchies2010-03-17

Nope, not humor.  Irony.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
kelseymh (author)TheBatchies2010-03-12

Oh you're one of those.  No point in arguing then; facts are irrelevant here.  Sorry to have taken up your time.  Please, go back to watching your Fox News and waiting for 2012.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
TheBatchies (author)kelseymh2010-03-13

2012 is a hoax, too. The Mayans were predicting their own demise. Every culture records time differently, so to some cultures, the year is 5745. To the Mayans, their 2012 already came. The movie was great, though. Funny, though, how FOXNews reports BOTH sides of the story. They don't just talk about liberals all day, although it can be pretty hard not to sometimes. When it comes to lib-tards, facts ARE irrelevant


And, finish the statement; I'm one of WHAT? The good guys, who, for some odd reason, value LIFE over MONEY? Wow, we really are bad! And we actually base our claims with EVIDENCE, apparently a foreign concept to you people. A nice book I read in 4th grade was, "The Boy Who Saved Baseball." You don't have to know baseball to read it, but the message inside it is a great one.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
kelseymh (author)TheBatchies2010-03-15

You're behaving and presenting yourself like one of the ignorant louts who has decided to abdicate any personal responsibility for understanding or evaluating factual information, and instead merely parrots back whatever was shouted at him the loudest. 

If you aren't actually one of those people, please, please demonstrate it by providing citations (preferably to independent, peer reviewed publications) to support your otherwise absurd and demonstrably false statements.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
kelseymh (author)TheBatchies2010-03-16

And none of those three are peer-reviewed publications either.  You really do seem to be unclear on the difference between fact and opinion.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
TheBatchies (author)kelseymh2010-03-17

Well, I could explain why Wikipedia is screwy. There are two symbols at the top of the "Global Warming" article. A gold star, a silver lock. The silver lock will not allow anybody to edit the page due to "vandalism" (facts). The gold star means it was featured. It is a well-known fact that AGW is fake, and I think that I'm doing pretty well for a 13-year-old kid (birthday was 4 days ago, w00t!).

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer