Tim C .

Following up to Viking <[email protected]> :

>On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:40:19 +0100, Tim C. <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>Following up to Viking <[email protected]> :
>>
>>>On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 03:37:29 GMT, Mike <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070311/...y_speed_limits
>>>>
>>>>"Each 5 mph a car drives over 60 mph reduces fuel economy by 10 percent,
>>>>according to the U.S. Department of Energy. "
>>>
>>>So at 110 mph, the car stops?
>>
>>lol
>>
>>say consumption is 100mpg for the sake of argument:
>>60-65mph: 100 mpg - (10% of 100) = 90 mpg (difference 10)
>>65-70mph: 90 mpg - (10% of 90) = 81 mpg (difference 9)
>>70-75mph: 81 mpg - (10% of 81) = ~73 mpg (difference ~8)
>>and so on.
>
>Actually, the US DOE statement as written appears quite flat, not
>compound. It simply says that "Each 5 mph a car drives over 60 mph
>reduces fuel economy by 10 percent." So a completely valid
>interpretation is (I see your interpretation as well, but this is as
>valid given the wording, and much more fun):
>Say consumption is 100mpg for the sake of argument:
>65 mph: 100mpg - ((65 - 60) x 10%) = 90mpg
>75 mph: 100 mpg - ((75 - 60) x 10%) = 70mpg
>110 mph: 100mpg - ((110 - 60) x 10%) = 0mpg
>
>So at 110mph, the car stops.

I don't know if it stops, it could travel a Planck distance using infinite
fuel. Then it would stop. :-)
--
Tim C.

Tim C .

Following up to Go Fig <[email protected]> :

>In article <[email protected]>, Viking
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:40:19 +0100, Tim C. <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Following up to Viking <[email protected]> :
>> >
>> >>On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 03:37:29 GMT, Mike <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070311/...y_speed_limits
>> >>>
>> >>>"Each 5 mph a car drives over 60 mph reduces fuel economy by 10 percent,
>> >>>according to the U.S. Department of Energy. "
>> >>
>> >>So at 110 mph, the car stops?
>> >
>> >lol
>> >
>> >say consumption is 100mpg for the sake of argument:
>> >60-65mph: 100 mpg - (10% of 100) = 90 mpg (difference 10)
>> >65-70mph: 90 mpg - (10% of 90) = 81 mpg (difference 9)
>> >70-75mph: 81 mpg - (10% of 81) = ~73 mpg (difference ~8)
>> >and so on.
>>
>> Actually, the US DOE statement as written appears quite flat, not
>> compound. It simply says that "Each 5 mph a car drives over 60 mph
>> reduces fuel economy by 10 percent." So a completely valid
>> interpretation is (I see your interpretation as well, but this is as
>> valid given the wording, and much more fun):
>> Say consumption is 100mpg for the sake of argument:
>> 65 mph: 100mpg - ((65 - 60) x 10%) = 90mpg
>> 75 mph: 100 mpg - ((75 - 60) x 10%) = 70mpg
>> 110 mph: 100mpg - ((110 - 60) x 10%) = 0mpg
>>
>> So at 110mph, the car stops.
>
>
>Since the maximum legal limit to mph in the U.S. is 80mph, that
>presumably would be the upper level of the extrapolation in this crude
>formula.

Illegal is not impossible.
Unfortunately the US DOE didn't seem to say "cars in the USA ..." so they
could also apply their figures to cars in other countries.
--
Tim C.

The Reid

On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 08:36:17 +0100, Tim C. <[email protected]>
wrote:

>>110 mph: 100mpg - ((110 - 60) x 10%) = 0mpg
>>
>>So at 110mph, the car stops.
>
>I don't know if it stops, it could travel a Planck distance using infinite
>fuel. Then it would stop. :-)

how long does it take to get from A to B at 0 mph, ignoring fuel?
--
Mike Reid
UK walking, food, photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Spain walking, food, tourism "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk"
Beginners UK flight sim addons "http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk"

Tim C .

Following up to The Reid <[email protected]> :

>On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 08:36:17 +0100, Tim C. <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>>110 mph: 100mpg - ((110 - 60) x 10%) = 0mpg
>>>
>>>So at 110mph, the car stops.

But at 120 mph it'll be -10mpg and you'll be making fuel. So.... drive
really really fast and you can power a whole town on one tankful.


>>I don't know if it stops, it could travel a Planck distance using infinite
>>fuel. Then it would stop. :-)
>
>how long does it take to get from A to B at 0 mph, ignoring fuel?

I don't know it was 110mph at 0mpg. That equates to 100mph at infinite fuel
consumption. But it's infinite only at the instant you reach 110mph. So
find a nice steep hill, blast down it until 109mph, slip it in neutral
until it speeds up to 111 mph and then you'll be making fuel. see above.
--
Tim C.

The Reid

On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 12:43:51 +0100, Tim C. <[email protected]>
wrote:

>But at 120 mph it'll be -10mpg and you'll be making fuel. So.... drive
>really really fast and you can power a whole town on one tankful.

I'll pass this on to Jeremy Clarkeson.

But what is -10mpg? Minus 10 miles must represent some inner journey
(one that presumably needs a gallon of fuel)

>>how long does it take to get from A to B at 0 mph, ignoring fuel?
>
>I don't know it was 110mph at 0mpg. That equates to 100mph at infinite fuel
>consumption. But it's infinite only at the instant you reach 110mph. So
>find a nice steep hill, blast down it until 109mph, slip it in neutral
>until it speeds up to 111 mph and then you'll be making fuel. see above.

Its a cracker!
--
Mike Reid
UK walking, food, photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Spain walking, food, tourism "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk"
Beginners UK flight sim addons "http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk"

Tim C .

Following up to The Reid <[email protected]> :

>On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 12:43:51 +0100, Tim C. <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>But at 120 mph it'll be -10mpg and you'll be making fuel. So.... drive
>>really really fast and you can power a whole town on one tankful.
>
>I'll pass this on to Jeremy Clarkeson.
>
>But what is -10mpg? Minus 10 miles must represent some inner journey
>(one that presumably needs a gallon of fuel)

Either that or you start going backwards. Which is easy to fix, just
reverse everywhere at 120mph. :_)

>>>how long does it take to get from A to B at 0 mph, ignoring fuel?
>>
>>I don't know it was 110mph at 0mpg. That equates to 100mph at infinite fuel
>>consumption. But it's infinite only at the instant you reach 110mph. So
>>find a nice steep hill, blast down it until 109mph, slip it in neutral
>>until it speeds up to 111 mph and then you'll be making fuel. see above.
>
>Its a cracker!

Personally I don't think the US DOE really understood all the implications
of their statement.
--
Tim C.

The Reid

On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 14:14:39 +0100, Tim C. <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Either that or you start going backwards. Which is easy to fix, just
>reverse everywhere at 120mph. :_)

it would confuse speed cameras.

>Personally I don't think the US DOE really understood all the implications
>of their statement.

at least it has less implications than a Bush foreign policy decision.
--
Mike Reid
UK walking, food, photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Spain walking, food, tourism "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk"
Beginners UK flight sim addons "http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk"

Tim C .

Following up to The Reid <[email protected]> :

>On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 14:14:39 +0100, Tim C. <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>Either that or you start going backwards. Which is easy to fix, just
>>reverse everywhere at 120mph. :_)
>
>it would confuse speed cameras.
>
>>Personally I don't think the US DOE really understood all the implications
>>of their statement.
>
>at least it has less implications than a Bush foreign policy decision.

ouch! lol
--
Tim C.

Tom Peel

Tim C. schrieb:
> Following up to The Reid <[email protected]> :
>
>> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 12:43:51 +0100, Tim C. <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> But at 120 mph it'll be -10mpg and you'll be making fuel. So.... drive
>>> really really fast and you can power a whole town on one tankful.
>> I'll pass this on to Jeremy Clarkeson.
>>
>> But what is -10mpg? Minus 10 miles must represent some inner journey
>> (one that presumably needs a gallon of fuel)
>
> Either that or you start going backwards. Which is easy to fix, just
> reverse everywhere at 120mph. :_)
>
>>>> how long does it take to get from A to B at 0 mph, ignoring fuel?
>>> I don't know it was 110mph at 0mpg. That equates to 100mph at infinite fuel
>>> consumption. But it's infinite only at the instant you reach 110mph. So
>>> find a nice steep hill, blast down it until 109mph, slip it in neutral
>>> until it speeds up to 111 mph and then you'll be making fuel. see above.
>> Its a cracker!
>
> Personally I don't think the US DOE really understood all the implications
> of their statement.
It's a 21st century version of Zeno's paradox.
T.

-Martin

On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 23:57:26 +0100, Tom Peel <[email protected]> wrote:


>It's a 21st century version of Zeno's paradox.

Talking of which, did you sort out your plane ticket problem, Tom?
--

Martin

Tom Peel

Martin schrieb:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 23:57:26 +0100, Tom Peel <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> It's a 21st century version of Zeno's paradox.
>
> Talking of which, did you sort out your plane ticket problem, Tom?

We ordered a ticket with the estimated DoB and the name if it's a girl.
If we have to change it, it will cost money.

T.

-Martin

On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 22:39:38 +0100, Tom Peel <[email protected]> wrote:

>Martin schrieb:
>> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 23:57:26 +0100, Tom Peel <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> It's a 21st century version of Zeno's paradox.
>>
>> Talking of which, did you sort out your plane ticket problem, Tom?
>
>We ordered a ticket with the estimated DoB and the name if it's a girl.
>If we have to change it, it will cost money.

EUR 10 ??

I hope it works out OK for you! My son knows that his partner is having a boy
in July. Time for a scan?
--

Martin