22 Sept. No petrol day

Fusion can and will work -- the energy output goes up as volume or the
reactor to some power, and to reach and go beyond the breakeven point,
we simply need to devote more money, and more engineering to the
problem. The science has been (mostly) solved. It takes bugger all
fuel, and is renewable for all intents and purposes.


"However, the technology to harness nuclear fusion for energy
production is still in the early stages of development. At present,
reactors seeking to harness fusion power consume more energy in
triggering the fusion reaction than they can produce, and a sustained
fusion reaction has proven difficult to produce and
sustain.'http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/71.html' (http://) "



Pat


--
vaudegiant

Stuart Lamble Wrote:
On 2005-09-15, Peka wrote:

LotteBum Wrote:
how dumb does this make those who drive 4WD's and other large
vehicles?
Not all who drive 4WD's are dumb. A 2+ tonne turbo diesel wagon can
use
less fuel than a standard petrol family car. A smaller diesel 4wd
will
use less again. Diesel also requires less refining. There must be
reason why Europe has heaps of diesel passenger cars?

Yes. Diesel is taxed less than petrol in Europe. That makes it
significantly cheaper ...While the cost per litre of petrol might be significant enough in
Europe, the difference here does NOT make it more expensive. Not if you
actually do some calculations. My Patrol 4.2TD uses ~12.5L/100km for
normal daily driving. It's a pretty agricultural engine, the EFI models
are better. Before that I had a dual fuel (ie. LPG/Petrol) 3.2L V6 Rodeo
which typically used 18L/100km when on petrol - smaller engine with EFI,
4 valves per cyl etc, less weight to push around, and still chews that
much extra fuel in normal daily driving. At current prices, that's
nearly 6L and $6 extra per 100km. I get ~800km per tank, so it's using
nearly 50L less! The difference is much bigger if you compare it to a
Patrol or Landcruiser petrol.


--
Peka

Peka wrote:
Theo Bekkers Wrote:

Sorento, and that IS a two tonne 4WD

ROFL, a Kia Sorento is a '4WD'? Surely you jest

In that it has a 2-4, Hi-Lo selections on it's gear shift, unlike an AWD.

It's a common misconception that the bigger a vehicle is, the more
space it has for passengers.

I think I pointed out that a Commodore wagon is considerably longer than
"big" 4WDs.

Theo

Theo Bekkers Wrote:
Resound wrote:

Oh I'm not saying that the 121 wasn't a bit small, it would be.
Those
things have a tiny boot. But a Falcon? I suppose all those famillies
in Europe driving Fiat Puntos and Citroen Saxos just bung the baby
in
the glovebox?

Or maybe they have different rules for child capsules etc. My
daughter-in-law had two children less than 18 months apart. Two child
capsules, a twin stroller and the shopping just did not fit into the
Kia
Sorento, and that IS a two tonne 4WD. She got a Holden Adventra which
has
more rear-seat depth and a much larger boot. The Adventra is 500mm
longer
than even a Land crusher.

Theo

Then, nasty as it sounds, she's not doing something effectively. The
largest car my family had when I was a kid was a Datsun 180B station
wagon and we certainly didn't suffer. Again, I point at Europe, and I
rather seriously doubt that they suffer horribly OR abuse their
children or expose them to needless danger on cultural scale. The
Scandinavians would be one of the last cultures to do that sort of
thing, and if you think they dont make use of cars during the winter
months, especially with very young children, you're deluding yourself.
Trying to say that someone NEEDS a two tonne (or near as dammit)
monster like an Adventra simply because they have children is a crock.
If you get the all terrain 4½ foot wide stroller then you might find it
needful, but that's the same sort of mindless bigger is better mentality
that says that a two tonne vehicle is exactly what you need to cope with
a family.

In short, bollarks.


--
Resound

Resound wrote:

Then, nasty as it sounds, she's not doing something effectively.

BINGO!!

The largest car my family had when I was a kid was a Datsun 180B
station wagon and we certainly didn't suffer.

But didn't you know that in 'modern' day Australian culture (actually,
I'd hardly call it modern - how about 'this day'), you are abusing your
child if your car does not weigh at least 2 tonnes.

My nephew goes to a private school and my sister reckons there is
nothing worse than when she drops him off at school in her late model
Mazda 323, and all the other mothers turn up in their Patrols and
Landcruisers to drop their children off.

People can attempt to justify driving a big car all they want - I'll
never buy it. I don't care how little you drive. In reality some
people due to personal circumstances do need to drive further than
others, but that doesn't justify driving a gas guzzling death trap to
the local school twice a day. Think about it.

Anyway, apparently fuel sales are down 5% this week. It wasn't that
hard, was it?

Again, I point at Europe, and I rather seriously doubt that they suffer
horribly
OR abuse their children or expose them to needless danger on cultural
scale.

Precisely. Over there, it's the norm.

The Scandinavians would be one of the last cultures to do that sort of
thing, and if you think they dont make use of cars during the winter
months, especially with very young children, you're deluding yourself.

Perfect example: My mum rode her bike to work on a daily basis until
just days before she had my sister and I. I was born in December, my
sister in February. Those are hardly warm months over there.

Trying to say that someone NEEDS a two tonne (or near as dammit)
monster like an Adventra simply because they have children is a crock.
If you get the all terrain 4½ foot wide stroller then you might find it
needful, but that's the same sort of mindless bigger is better mentality
that says that a two tonne vehicle is exactly what you need to cope with
a family.

You've hit the nail on the head. I think it's a status thing and it's
oh so pathetic in my view.

In short, bollarks.

Agreed.

LotteBum


--
LotteBum

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 12:06:33 +1000, Resound wrote:

Again, I point at Europe, and I
rather seriously doubt that they suffer horribly OR abuse their
children or expose them to needless danger on cultural scale.

Please don't keep pointing at Europe as if it's a haven of all things
sensible. There's a fair selection of regulations/behaviour that are pretty
silly there too. The child car seats over there are increasingly going the
way of those over here. When we were back home in Scotland last Christmas
the best child seat we could find was a bugger to fit properly and even
when it did fit it swayed from side to side with even gentle cornering.
Some countries (it may even be an EU wide change) are introducing standard
which require the rear fixing similar to Australian models (in addition to
the seat belt). There are a few, primarily manufacturer specific, fittings
which hold the seat absolutely rock solid (it's fixed to the floor pan).

Even in Europe they're going with the "bigger is better" for kid seats. And
yes, in many cases it means either getting a bigger car or sacrificing the
ability to fit an adult in the front passenger seat. That said a "bigger
car" can often mean just a better designed car. Many cars that would be
considered small over here provide more space for passengers than a
Commodore/Falcon could ever hope of doing.

Graeme

"Resound" wrote in message
...



Scandinavians would be one of the last cultures to do that sort of
thing, and if you think they dont make use of cars during the winter

The ubiquitous yellow Volvo station wagon from the 80's?

It is not enormous, but it is no small car.

I don't think many are arguing that a Falcon may be overkill if we are
talking about one new child. Just that a 121 is inadequate to transport a
new born - 6 month old due to legislation/regulation that specifically
requires use of a rearward facing seat for babies satisfying Australian
Design Rules. All resulting in baby seats that don't fit in a 121 with
anymore than 2 other passengers. Any family with 1 baby and two toddlers
still in car seats would know that they do not fit in anything smaller than
a large car (commodore or falcon) - even the narrowest seats cannot fit
across the width.

"Graeme Dods" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 12:06:33 +1000, Resound wrote:

Again, I point at Europe, and I
rather seriously doubt that they suffer horribly OR abuse their
children or expose them to needless danger on cultural scale.

Please don't keep pointing at Europe as if it's a haven of all things
sensible.

I'm not, per sé. What I'm pointing out is that they seem to manage perfectly
well, including the scandinavian countries who are huge on road safety,
while driving much smaller cars than we have here. What I was saying
originally was that to justify the purchase of a Ford Falcon of the basis
that you've have a child (as this woman did) and then complain about fuel
prices is a bloody stupid thing. I refuse to believe that having a child
requires the purchase of a huge vehicle.

"Bob" wrote in message
u...

"Resound" wrote in message
...



Scandinavians would be one of the last cultures to do that sort of
thing, and if you think they dont make use of cars during the winter

The ubiquitous yellow Volvo station wagon from the 80's?

It is not enormous, but it is no small car.

I don't think many are arguing that a Falcon may be overkill if we are
talking about one new child. Just that a 121 is inadequate to transport a
new born - 6 month old due to legislation/regulation that specifically
requires use of a rearward facing seat for babies satisfying Australian
Design Rules. All resulting in baby seats that don't fit in a 121 with
anymore than 2 other passengers. Any family with 1 baby and two toddlers
still in car seats would know that they do not fit in anything smaller
than a large car (commodore or falcon) - even the narrowest seats cannot
fit across the width.


So anyone who has two shildren and manages with a car that's smaller than a
Commodore or Falcon is clearly cheating somehow?

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 15:24:45 +1000, flyingdutch wrote:

OK OK. I agree to not buy any petrol for my bike

And you mustn't oil it, either :-)

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw