The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Gun Dog Broker
Page 34 of 45 FirstFirst ... 24323334353644 ... LastLast
Results 331 to 340 of 442

Thread: Speaking of Global Warming

  1. #331
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Lebanon, OH
    Posts
    434

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buzz View Post
    I get the impression that this is a statement based more on "gut feelings" than on facts. Please spend a little time researching trends in traffic deaths. This is a fairly decent summary of statistics:

    http://timwjackson.wordpress.com/201...to-fatalities/

    F=M X a I believe this is Newton's second law. Deaths can go down but physics still rule. I bet you will also disagree with the first law of gravity. Unbelievable

    The U S Department of Transportation keeps data on traffic accidents including the Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS) with fatalities since 1975 which number over a half million (averaging 45,000 per year in the US). Each year there are about 18 million property damage crashes with 1.7 million injuries. The risk of accidents for young drivers is greater in all categories of accidents, 18 yr olds having 400% more accidents than 40 yr olds. Analysis of such data permits reasonable estimation of factors which influence safety such as vehicle mass and the use of seatbelts. Some interesting human factors come into play. For example, given a severe crash, the driver of a 900 kg car is about 2.6 times more likely to be killed than the driver of an 1800 kg car. But overall data indicates that 1.7 times as many drivers of 900 kg cars are killed, compared to 1800 kg cars, indicating that drivers of light cars are more cautious and less likely to have such accidents. In seatbelt statistics, it must be factored in that persons who choose not to use seatbelts are more likely to have accidents out of a higher general bent toward risk taking.

    Source: Leonard Evans, "The Science of Traffic Safety", The Physics Teacher 26, October 1988, Page 431.

    Trucks: more likely to 'win' in car crash
    Phil Frame, a spokesman for the National Transportation Safety Board, said that while large trucks are not part of most deadly wrecks, "they are overrepresented in the number of fatal accidents they are involved in."

    In 1997, they accounted for 9 percent nationally of all vehicles in fatal wrecks, but accounted for only 3 percent of all registered vehicles and 7 percent of total vehicle miles traveled, the national transportation statistics show.

    "The greater mass vehicle almost always wins in a vehicle crash", Frame said.

    78 percent of the people who died after collisions with big trucks were occupants of the other vehicle, and 75 percent of the people who were injured were in the other vehicle."

    Excerpts from "Facts counter fear about big rigs", by Jennifer Brett, Atlanta Journal.

    Spokesmen for the trucking industry are quick to point out that truck drivers are better trained, and safer drivers than the general public - and that is believable. But just the physics of collisions dictates that the occupant of the less massive vehicle is more at risk when a collision does occur.

    Just because you have seatbelts, air bags, etc., etc. the oak tree is still going to win. However, I would take my chances in my 2500 diesel over a small box car any day.

    Dan
    Last edited by Dan Storts; 01-16-2014 at 02:20 PM.

  2. #332
    Senior Member Buzz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Brookings, South Dakota
    Posts
    6,556

    Default

    Dan, I'm sorry. When I suggested researching recent trends in traffic fatalities, I did not mean to grab something from an article published 26 years ago. What does this F=M x a mean? I haven't seen that before... Of course when a light vehicle does battle with a light one, generally the light one loses. But mass isn't the last word in vehicle safety. The real force of concern is from deceleration of the human body. Crumple zones can help. So can say designing the vehicle to reduce penetration of the engine into the passenger space, etc.

    Are you going to argue that the new F-150 is will be a safety hazard?

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-alum...ounds-lighter/

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Storts View Post
    F=M X a

    The U S Department of Transportation keeps data on traffic accidents including the Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS) with fatalities since 1975 which number over a half million (averaging 45,000 per year in the US). Each year there are about 18 million property damage crashes with 1.7 million injuries. The risk of accidents for young drivers is greater in all categories of accidents, 18 yr olds having 400% more accidents than 40 yr olds. Analysis of such data permits reasonable estimation of factors which influence safety such as vehicle mass and the use of seatbelts. Some interesting human factors come into play. For example, given a severe crash, the driver of a 900 kg car is about 2.6 times more likely to be killed than the driver of an 1800 kg car. But overall data indicates that 1.7 times as many drivers of 900 kg cars are killed, compared to 1800 kg cars, indicating that drivers of light cars are more cautious and less likely to have such accidents. In seatbelt statistics, it must be factored in that persons who choose not to use seatbelts are more likely to have accidents out of a higher general bent toward risk taking.

    Source: Leonard Evans, "The Science of Traffic Safety", The Physics Teacher 26, October 1988, Page 431.
    Last edited by Buzz; 01-16-2014 at 02:30 PM.
    "For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required." -- Luke 12:48

    Raven - Moneybird's Black Magic Marker***
    (Esprit's Power Play x Trumarc's Lean Cuisine)
    Mick - Moneybird's Jumpin' Jack Flash***
    (Clubmead's Road Warrior x Oakdale Whitewater Devil Dog)
    Peerless - Moneybird's Sole Survivor
    (Two River's Lucky Willie x Moneybird's Black Magic Marker)

  3. #333
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Lebanon, OH
    Posts
    434

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buzz View Post
    Dan, I'm sorry. When I suggested researching recent trends in traffic fatalities, I did not mean to grab something from an article published 26 years ago. What does this F=M x a mean? I haven't seen that before... Of course when a light vehicle does battle with a light one, generally the light one loses. But mass isn't the last word in vehicle safety. The real force of concern is from deceleration of the human body. Crumple zones can help. So can say designing the vehicle to reduce penetration of the engine into the passenger space, etc.

    Are you going to argue that the new F-150 is will be a safety hazard?

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-alum...ounds-lighter/
    Force = Mass X acceleration

    Even if the article was 100 years it would still hold true. This statement stills holds if we drove in NASCAR quality cars. Deaths would be down but the tree/wall would still win.

    It will less safe when going up against the F-350 Diesel but I would rather be in a semi against either one.
    Dan
    Last edited by Dan Storts; 01-16-2014 at 02:58 PM.

  4. #334
    Senior Member Buzz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Brookings, South Dakota
    Posts
    6,556

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Storts View Post
    Force = Mass X acceleration

    Even if the article was 100 years it would still hold true. This statement stills holds if we drove in NASCAR quality cars. Deaths would be down but the tree/wall would still win.

    It will less safe when going up against the F-350 Diesel but I would rather be in a semi against either one.
    Dan
    Oh good Lord, I was making a joke. I'm an engineer. I have a reasonable knowledge of physics. I'm just trying to say that there is more to it than F = m x a. I know for a fact that over the years, some small sedans have had better results than some trucks and SUV's in crash tests where they were slammed into walls. What would you rather crash into the wall with at 200 mph? A "NASCAR" quality car, or an F-350? I'm going to guess in an F-350 your chances would be close to zero. Which one would you say is more massive? But I could be wrong. I usually am. Just ask my wife!
    Last edited by Buzz; 01-16-2014 at 07:51 PM.
    "For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required." -- Luke 12:48

    Raven - Moneybird's Black Magic Marker***
    (Esprit's Power Play x Trumarc's Lean Cuisine)
    Mick - Moneybird's Jumpin' Jack Flash***
    (Clubmead's Road Warrior x Oakdale Whitewater Devil Dog)
    Peerless - Moneybird's Sole Survivor
    (Two River's Lucky Willie x Moneybird's Black Magic Marker)

  5. #335
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Lebanon, OH
    Posts
    434

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buzz View Post
    Oh good Lord, I was making a joke. I'm an engineer. I have a reasonable knowledge of physics. I'm just trying to say that there is more to it than F = m x a. I know for a fact that over the years, some small sedans have had better results than some trucks and SUV's in crash tests where they were slammed into walls. What would you rather crash into the wall with at 200 mph? A "NASCAR" quality car, or an F-350? I'm going to guess in an F-350 your chances would be close to zero. But I could be wrong. I usually am. Just ask my wife!
    You never sure who's on the other side of the keyboard. Some may think acceleration is the same as speed.

    All thins being the same, the NASCAR and F-350 having the same safety features, the statical advantage would go to the F-350 because of weight.

    Dan

  6. #336
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Detroit Lakes, MN
    Posts
    1,368

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Storts View Post
    No they can't get any free money.

    The stating of starting a company to disprove climate change was to general because that research money is being pumped into the universities. It is a MIT scientist like Dr. Lindzen which doesn't receive major funding. You will likely find a link where all the other scientists, getting the funding, pile on for any statements he said years ago. Do this if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy.

    Softball examples of company starts are in the battery and solar panel industry. Along with all the manufactures associated with them like Exxon Mobile which extracts the oil needed to manufacture these products. In the form of plastics.

    Other companies just gradually increase the efficiency of their product. Emerson/Copeland compressors which gradually increase the seer rating. Currently they offer 13 seer but are capable of much higher and lobby to get the lower models being banned from sale. In the meantime they can also lobby to produce a study, via the EPA, showing that R-410A is causing global warming. This will allow them, to maybe, go back to the 12 seer and delay the higher seers even longer.

    Then there is the car companies which just makes their vehicles lighter to meet CAFE standards. This results in more accident deaths and injuries. Thus, increasing the overall health care costs but that is another thread.

    Dan
    Regarding Dr. Lindzen, he is one of the few legitimate scientists being critical of the current climate science. He does not deny that the climate has changed or that it has warmed or that human produced CO2 is the primary cause. His theory is basically that the earth's climate system is not very sensitive to CO2 and that the system will compensate for the undeniable retention of energy in the atmosphere due to increases in CO2 through negative feedback mechanisms such as increased cloud formation and resulting reflection of sunlight. Here is a pretty good article representing his perspective http://www.weeklystandard.com/articl...68.html?page=3. Here is a critical view of his theories http://www.skepticalscience.com/clim...d-Lindzen.html

    Yes, government standards on a wide range of issues can drive the private sector to do many different things. US Government SEER standards can drive technology and innovation. So can clean water standards, CAFE standards and maybe the threat of CO2 standards.
    Yes, I agree that companies lobby Congress all the time to get a competitive advantage.

    Regarding car safety, it sure seems like they are a heck of a lot safer today than 10 years ago and I believe the data support this. It is also clear that the US is now consuming 50,000 fewer barrels of gasoline each day than we were back in 2011 (http://247wallst.com/economy/2013/09...inues-falling/). Fuel standards and more efficient cars do play a part in this all the while cars are getting safer and emitting less CO2.
    Last edited by Henry V; 01-16-2014 at 07:22 PM.

  7. #337
    Senior Member Buzz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Brookings, South Dakota
    Posts
    6,556

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Storts View Post
    You never sure who's on the other side of the keyboard. Some may think acceleration is the same as speed.

    All thins being the same, the NASCAR and F-350 having the same safety features, the statical advantage would go to the F-350 because of weight.

    Dan

    For the sake of conversation. Given this theoretical collision with the wall. Which vehicle would you suppose has to dissipate more energy when it strikes the wall? You might be correct, however I would either need to do a lot of work to convince myself, or I would need to run a test. Running the test sounds more fun provided it's all done by remote control! My gut tells me that the F-350 would fold up on you. If you could build that F-350 from the ground up, sure. I had this conversation with a group of engineers that I went to school with a few years ago. There were actually two camps. One was a real life vehicle safety engineer. Not everyone was convinced, but in the end the consensus was, it depends... We figured that at some point, mass would no longer be your friend. Of course if you're talking about car against car, mass should win the day. Immovable objects, not so much. Roll-overs, probably not so much.
    "For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required." -- Luke 12:48

    Raven - Moneybird's Black Magic Marker***
    (Esprit's Power Play x Trumarc's Lean Cuisine)
    Mick - Moneybird's Jumpin' Jack Flash***
    (Clubmead's Road Warrior x Oakdale Whitewater Devil Dog)
    Peerless - Moneybird's Sole Survivor
    (Two River's Lucky Willie x Moneybird's Black Magic Marker)

  8. #338
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Lebanon, OH
    Posts
    434

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Buzz View Post
    For the sake of conversation. Given this theoretical collision with the wall. Which vehicle would you suppose has to dissipate more energy when it strikes the wall? You might be correct, however I would either need to do a lot of work to convince myself, or I would need to run a test. Running the test sounds more fun provided it's all done by remote control! My gut tells me that the F-350 would fold up on you. If you could build that F-350 from the ground up, sure. I had this conversation with a group of engineers that I went to school with a few years ago. There were actually two camps. One was a real life vehicle safety engineer. Not everyone was convinced, but in the end the consensus was, it depends... We figured that at some point, mass would no longer be your friend. Of course if you're talking about car against car, mass should win the day. Immovable objects, not so much. Roll-overs, probably not so much.
    Absolutely correct concerning things like roll-overs but just a little outside the box thought.

    In the case of the wall being a immovable object. Hypothetically speaking, there will be a point where the outside force would bring down the wall. Both passengers in the vehicles would definitely die in this type of crash. However, if the car weighed 1k and the truck weighed 4k, (a) is the only variable we could change increasing the force of the car. With (a) being 4 times greater I would bet on the car passenger existence to be shorter upon impact. This would be microseconds of course.

    I know this is splitting hairs but only a few things are infinite, like pi.

    Dan

  9. #339
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Lebanon, OH
    Posts
    434

    Default

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...s-baffled.html

    They have to be a group of the top scientist/researchers in the world. However, they only have theories about the rocks origin in 30 days. Then other scientist, of their caliber, will say its undeniable the gas we exhale is completely responsible for global warming.

  10. #340
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,167

    Default

    If this is true; and if the govt is as good at saving the planet as it is at building a website, we are in deep dog-doo:
    U.S. Government ADMITS They are Chemtrailing You:
    1966 US Government Document Outlines National Weather Modification Programs and Implications

    https://theusindependent.com/1966-us...?utm_source=FB Dane Wigington | Assoc. Editor, The US Independent

    JANUARY 21, 2014 The document contained below is very damning. It should be a stark wake up call for any that still deny the existence of massive covert weather modification programs which are coordinated by various governments around the world. It outlines in great detail the existence of expanding US weather modification programs for at least a decade prior to the document in question. (Back to at least 1956).

    A “special commission” is outlined in this document to coordinate the multiple governmental agencies involved with US weather modification programs as well as independent contractors and universities which the report also mentions. It covers the “management” of international impacts, legal and social ramifications, species disruptions, biological consequences, etc.

    A rapidly increasing mountain of data makes ever more clear that almost none of us alive today have known completely natural weather. That massive covert government programs have been playing “God” with the biosphere for probably 60 years or more. That in recent years, the scope and scale of these devastating weather modification programs has been ramped up so much that the entire climate system and biosphere is at stake. The lethal nature of the ongoing “geoengineering” programs can not be overstated. Life on our planet is quite literally in the balance. Geoengineering must be brought into the light of day and then to a halt. All are needed to assist in this all important effort. See document here: http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/documents-library/a-recomended-national-program-in-weather-modification-icas-report-10a/
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •