Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
anita514
Gym climber
Great White North
|
|
yes
we are into les ménages à trois. want in?
|
|
anita514
Gym climber
Great White North
|
|
What .... and get the clap or worse, AIDS from all your Cross Country trio playing Anita?
really classy, Chief. making fun of people with AIDS... can you go any lower?
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
Fact is, all it does is place unburnable crap back into the combustion operation only to build up tons of performance inhibiting carbon in the throttle body and intake valves. Depleting the engine of performance and resulting in more air polluting shet coming outta the exhaust and MPG failing miserably after a low amount of miles.
What a crock of crap. You drinking the Kool Aid again?
But hey, you're not interested in factual data so rant away.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
Da Chief
You bet I know. I maintain my own California 1000cc motorcycle with 68K miles on it. You probably think I'm an idiot for keeping the engine completely stock. The plugs and carbs remain perfectly clean. The plug electrodes erode before there's any significant deposit on the plugs.
I also keep careful records on all my vehicles.
All of my recent cars have gone well over 100K miles. Two of them over 250K. One of them pushing 200K and one pushing 120K. The two newer ones have current CA emission controls.
All these engines run as well today, with exactly the same gas mileage, as when they were new. The plugs stay clean.
Perhaps you forget that in California, all auto/light truck vehicles have a 3 year/50K mile emission system warranty.
My two newer vehicles are PZEV and covered to 150K miles.
So they will certainly run 150K without emission problems.
But hey, what do I know?
|
|
anita514
Gym climber
Great White North
|
|
yes the Chef, I am in love with Fort Mental... *rolls eyes*
and fyi, I passed my AIDS test. I got 65.
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
Chief....Go out on 120 between Benton and Mono Lake on one of your rockets and check out the chem trails...You'll have the place to yourself.....You little sh#t...
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
Chief...Chem trails...? I saw you and picked up the package...Anybody see you..? I was tweakin hard...Went home and rubbed the paint off the Honda....rj
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
Well Chief, you're not entirely correct. At least on my 2001 motorcycle. The poor underpowered carburetted engine only makes 145 hp/liter. And that's showroom stock without jetting and exhaust mods. (If I thought I had any place to drive a crossplane crank R1 at anywhere near its potential, I'd have bought one).
No CA Emission Pkg other than a fuel tank over flow return line into the charcoal can. Got the tank return line and charcoal can.
Breather return line back into the airbox with flat out carb system would create havoc Got that too, but without the havoc. If the engine is properly tuned and not burning oil, the breather return doesn't create havoc.
I've actually got 4 breather return lines back to the airbox. One per cylinder. They are a monumental Pain In The Arse to remove to do the valve clearances (can you guess which engine has 20 valves?). But they are also clean, just a very slight interior oil film at 62K miles. The air cleaner fouls with dust long before it accumulates any noticeable oil.
Precisely because keeping up with the consistent proper F/A mixture of 14.1 ratio that is req'd by CA Law without a constant control/monitoring system.
My non EFI engine has an ECU/ECM.
But you are correct that I don't have EFI.....on my motorcycle. Just on my two current autos where everything works fine. As stated previously.
So please save your "modern engine fuel and pollution control systems f**ck up your engine" crap for someone else. Before these systems, you were lucky to get 100K out of an engine. Now you're pissed off if you don't get over 150K miles. With a lot better fuel economy and lower CO2 and other poisonous emissions.
The only conceivable drawback is the engines cost a lot more. But you save $ on fuel and the engine lasts longer. So where's the disadvantage?
I mean besides the Dammed Socialist Commie government is interfering in Godly Free Enterprise again? Didn't the swaggering hero Schwarzenneger bring in California's tighter emission controls? One of the surprising things he got right.
Perhaps you're having trouble with your engines because you've modified them?
End of rant and goodnight.
and my Engineer's work is also never finished
sayonara
140ish??
Meh. I've gotten get that in 5th with another gear to go......except of course for the blind curves, other vehicles, jackalopes and coyotes.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
what happened?
I thought the chief said he was through posting on this thread last week
what brought you back?
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
Clues
My bike was produced from 2001 from 2005. The engine was from the manufacturer's previous model super bike with different cam and gear ratios.
It has 20 valves.
And 4 carburetors.
Sweet dreams.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Come now Dr. Hartouni, do you really think that i and other readers of this thread are so naive as to believe that this backwater forum is the only place that you attempt to influence with your defense of climate science. You publish, review, attend conferences and conventions, advise, and probably post on many professional blogs. To a regime intoxicated with the control and revenues to be gained by imposition of the agenda of CO2 scientology ,your silence in support would be deafening. Just for a fun experiment i don't suppose you would come out in opposition of CAGW on this backwater forum, would you?
There is an article headlined at Judith Curry's Climate etc. tonight called The fundamental uncertainties of climate change. Reading it would only take away a few minutes from your hard work. It touches upon our waterfall discussion ( Leonardo's picture) among other problems. Care to challenge it's veracity?
EDIT: read Andy P.'s comment
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
All my V-Twins blast your rig on MPG. More so now that I gutted out all the CA Emissions crap.
shame on you
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2014 - 12:09am PT
|
Conspiracy no, politics yes, intoxication with thoughts of power and plunder. Standard stuff Ed, but the infection festering in science is worse than any ever before visited on the hallowed institution. So i take it you won't post against AGW even here on this obscure forum. I need to add another category to those in support of CO2 scientology-the coerced.
Did you read the article i mentioned?
http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/08/the-fundamental-uncertainties-of-climate-change/#more-14305
|
|
crunch
Social climber
CO
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2014 - 12:23am PT
|
The current Fed Budget Crunch crises is on
ya got that right. Crunch's Overfed Crisis is on, for sure.
I'm trying though. Waddled to the gym today. Wheezed my way up a few simple boulder problems. Another month I'll be in halfway decent shape.....
|
|
TLP
climber
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2014 - 12:46am PT
|
Rick, I read the link you recommend, and it is resoundingly devoid of practically any real technical content. The only point the writer made is that the models use too coarse of a grid of points to accurately simulate climate, and that because of this, incorrect conclusions may be drawn. He presents no analysis at all, zip, of how small scale bits in between the grid points throws the whole entire overall model off; nor of how his imaginary small eddies in the ocean somehow coalesce into something so large scale that the entire modeling result for the whole globe is wrong. It is pretty much just BS. And besides there's some twice as much text about the financial and status motivations of climate scientists as there is about the imaginary uncertainties. No wonder there's such lack of respect for the skepticism.
It's true that our understanding of the spatially and temporally large scale fluctuations in the oceans is not very good at all. But we have empirical information about their patterns, even though we don't understand those patterns causally (or for that matter even correlatively). They are not just totally random and unconfined in magnitude. So, it is feasible and reasonable to factor those known patterns into models and analysis of past data, much like noise canceling headphones work. And when you do this with the oceans and solar fluctuations, there's still a residual. If there were any data and cohesive theory that maybe it's fluctuations in heat emanating from the earth's core or something, somebody ought to run with that. But there just isn't any data or plausible theory, so we're left with the atmosphere.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2014 - 01:19am PT
|
Okay TLP, by the use of "we" and "our" in your post i assume you identify yourself with the soon to be extinct discipline of AGW climate science. You state "it is feasible and reasonable to factor those KNOWN patterns into the models". If this is so, along with other reasonable assumptions, then why are the projections of the models so divergent from observation-in particular why is Antarctica cooling and adding ice mass, why is their no mid tropospheric hot spot, why are large portions of the NH winters trending to more severe, why hasn't the global temperature anomaly not risen linearly with the increasing CO2. Yes, perhaps somebody could take a look under the rocks at the bottom of the atlantic, maybe the spread of the mid atlantic ridge has slowed down, thereby decreasing the much more than average .08 wm2 coming from the core there. Note to Trenberth-look under every rock,but not those. TLP, of course the article was largely devoid of science content. It was an expose on the cause and effects of science's detour from fact to fiction. By the way, do you have a name to match the initials?
EDIT:Bruce you forgot your up pointing arrows.
|
|
TLP
climber
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2014 - 02:17am PT
|
A couple decades ago, there was a great rush in all biological subdisciplines to try to impart a molecular aspect to research. Molecular taxonomy, molecular anatomy, you name it: even molecular ecology! It was as obvious as could be that it was largely driven by pursuit of funding. Did that somehow invalidate the science that was being done? Not at all. (In fact, as unlikely and BS-like as it sounds, there's some pretty cool stuff that came out of molecular ecological studies.) There weren't hundreds of naysayers railing away that molecular biology is invalid. So, if I read something that's basically a little bit of thin soup and a lot of paranoia about pursuit of funding, it's not going to be very persuasive.
And BTW "we" as I used it is in the sense of humanity in general, or at least scientists collectively. Climate science is very very old - there would have been no agriculture without it - and whether the planet is warming or not is only a very small bit of it. Trying to start figuring out things about oceans and long-term patterns like what triggers glacial and interglacial episodes goes way way way further back than even when CO2 measurements were first made. It's totally to be expected that the current bunch of models may not precisely predict every aspect of the entire atmospheric, surface, and oceanic system, and inability to explain some of the things you mention is interesting but doesn't falsify the current tentative overall conclusion. I would love for it to turn out to be wrong, and I think it is not realistic to expect anything will be done to reduce CO2 emissions significantly or, more stupidly, even to prepare to be more resilient if it turns out we're going to have giant naturally-driven climatic shifts. So we're doing a huge geoengineering experiment and we'll just see what happens. I just don't see any solid enough scientific criticism of the theory yet.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2014 - 10:06am PT
|
Gee professor, haven't you been paying attention to the fact that the last five NH winters have been markedly more severe than those in the nineties?
Show us one single satellite or radiosonde validation of the projected mid tropospheric hot spot.
By whose measurements has it been shown that the atmosphere at Antarctica is warming causing water vapor release and precipitation in the form of snow- was it the cast and crew of the recent ship of fools?
I beg your pardon, no matter how you try to twist interpretations of reality the 15-17 pause in warming is real and verified by all accepted organizations measuring temps.
As far as TLP goes, he sounds like the luke warm alter ego of The Learned Professor.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2014 - 10:55am PT
|
Yo Fortmental, for a break from this gong show check out the 1st column, 3rd graphic here. Just posted -- that started from your suggestion.
|
|
anita514
Gym climber
Great White North
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2014 - 11:00am PT
|
Chef ragging on people from Tennessee... racist
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!