Gas at $3.25,will affect attendance

Vegans don't eat cows. Cows produce an unbelievable amount of methane, which, molecule for molecule, is a hundred times as efficient as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

The other definition of Vegan, as in someone from the star system Vega, also applies. Vegans haven't visited Earth in millenia, and so haven't been around to cause global warming.

;)

To think that there is no credible arguement against global warming and its human correlation is absurd.

Sure the general belief is that the world is warming up, but i wonder just how credible that is? Or current scientific methods usually lead us to think that we are. And maybe that is. But when we're talking about a degree change over one hundred years, that has to be within the margin of error for the temperature measuring devices from a century ago. And really can a tree tell us how hot it was to the degree? or how hot it was a thousand years ago? And we think we understand the corelation between certain markers in the ice cores and overall temp, but that just tells s about what was happening in Siberia or where ever we get those samples. We think we have an idea of what was going on, but we can't know for certain.

Furthermore we have far more ability to obtain samples than in the past (ie our average gobal temps for today are far more accurate than they were even fifty years ago). The hard data that humans measure is to small and too unreliable (when looking across a century or more) to be making statements like we know for sure what is happening even at this moment in comparission to four generations ago. Remember the fear that we were heading for an ice age? That was only thirty years ago.

A glaring example of how the way we collect data effects our understanding of what is happening in our world is this. We are told that two years ago was the most active hurricane season in recorded history. And on the surface that might be true. However when one plots all of the hurricanes from 2005 against the last most active hurricane you see a glaring error.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1933_Atlantic_hurricane_season_map.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season_map.png

I know, i know... it's wikipedia, but i didn't want to search around and find a real site. It's still pretty safe to assume that these are valid.

The point is that there aren't any hurricanes that start and/or stop in the eastern part of the ocean. How can that be? Oh wait, we didn't have satalites. I'm not saying that there weren't a crap load of hurricanes in 2005, I'm saying that it's irresponsible to be claiming that the sky is falling when we don't know and can never know exactly when the most active hurricane season was. And then to try and tie it with this global warming i'm hearing about? Come on.

And that's what i can't get on the global wariming band wagon. There are some very compelling points with great face validity supporting all the claims made by those who think we're causing this great catastrophy. And then there are some arguements that don't. But in the end i come back to the fact that just beacause people (like Al Gore) say it over and over doesn't make it so. Overstatement of a position is one of the first red flags for me.

The thing that always makes me laugh is that no matter what i think or anyone else thinks about global warming and whether is it dangerous (after all the science tells us that places like Scotland were far better off when the world was a few degrees warmer. And places like Greenland were far more habitable for those viking types. So whose to say that a warmer globe is bad anyway?), i always come back to the logic that tells me that it just makes sense to be effecient and to rid ourselfs of a need for unsustainable/non-renewable energy sources that do pollute at some level. There's absolutely no real reason to say there's no global warming threat so let's go out and waste all of our finite natural resources. I'm all for stopping the waste and sprawl that is (imo) plaguing our society.

Sustainability and environmental awareness seems to me to be a good thing on its own without a need to make me feel bad for driving an SUV (which i would never do for reasons having nothing to do with the environment). After all having a well insulated house and driving my little honda saves me money over the long haul.

The whole environment movement has been hijacked by wackos that completely overstate their case. Don't tell me these "facts" when there is no certainty to much of the evidence. Afterall the co-founder of Greenpeace left that group for much the same reasons. Many in the environmentalist movement are just out to get big corporate america because of one thing or another... like they're socialist or something.

And one last thought on government incentives. That's the best idea expressed in the entire thread (except maybe the nuclear talk a while back). Look at the home ownership rates in this country. The fed made it their priority to get people into the real estate game and they made the incentives to reach that end. And there's plenty of government cash to go around. As best as i can figure they're throwing around more than two trillion dollars a year. One hundred billion is but a drop in that bucket. (not that i wouldn't rather it go to a better cause).
*** Edited 5/25/2007 6:28:54 AM UTC by gener***

Loopy said:
Get yourself some grammar lessons. That IS a suggestion.

I really don't care if I look "cool" as you say. Rather it's done to bring out the true dope smoking car salesman you really are.

*** Edited 5/25/2007 1:32:24 AM UTC by Loopy***

You got me there Chachi.

Beating a dead horse. Why didn't I think of that? Must have been all that dope or the $4,700 I made last month at my low life car sales job. Oh thats right. I don't sell cars anymore. I have my engineering job at GM. Bwahahaha! Who is smoking dope?

Me?

^hahaha.

I don't know where that loser gets his info. But I have not been at Saturn since damn near February. Oh and to keep it related to this topic. I'm working on the Volt as NVH engineer. Hopefully we will have these on the street in 2010. 300 miles on a charge is reasonable right?

If any of you armchair scientists want to be invited to a Volt event to discuss your concerns. PM me.

^^LOL.

dj, don't make me laugh when I'm eating Froot Loops. It's really ugly.

While I suppose its too much to hope for that the Volt will look identical to the concept, 300 miles is a very reasonable range. What was the EV1, around 60 miles?

^ Would you rather I wait until you're eating oatmeal? Yeah, I didn't think so. ;)
*** Edited 5/25/2007 12:05:28 PM UTC by djDaemon***

djDaemon said:
While I suppose its too much to hope for that the Volt will look identical to the concept, 300 miles is a very reasonable range. What was the EV1, around 60 miles?

^ Would you rather I wait until you're eating oatmeal? Yeah, I didn't think so. ;)
*** Edited 5/25/2007 12:05:28 PM UTC by djDaemon***

300 miles is a nice range,but I am 420 miles from CP.What will Ido??????

The vehicle has an on board gas generator that will hold about 3 gallons of gas. Should you run out, that generator will recharge the batteries about halfway. Now... Cedar Point needs to put in Plugs so we can charge them during the day.

EV1 or Impact as it will always be known to me was something along the lines of 55-60 miles.

When I first read the opening sentence, I read "gas generator" to be something that creates gas, presumably from magic beans, or something.

That's not a bad implementation of hybrid tech. Is GM still exploring the use of flywheels for storing energy? I seem to recall some research along those lines about, say, 10 years ago.

Couldn't you theoretically use the friction or just motion of the wheels turning on a coaster train to generate some type of power? That would be cool if one day coasters were self-sufficient and could power themselves. :)

Energy loss makes that impossible, unless you somehow managed to capture energy lost to friction, heat, sound, vibration and so on.

You couldn't use the rotation of the wheels to turn some kind of generation device? Store energy in batteries and have it transfered into the station when it returns?

I know it would be overly complex, but I'm sure it's possible in some way shape or form.

Put simply, no, its not possible to re-capture that energy. You lose energy to friction wherever any surface touches another - the wind on the train, the fluid on the bearings, the wheels on the track, etc. And that's only looking at kinetic friction. Static friction is generally greater than kinetic - which is why its more difficult to start sliding a box across the floor than it is to keep it moving.

In a lot of areas, technology has helped reduce friction, but there's simply no way to eliminate it. And all those "small" losses add up very quickly.

If you can find a way to conserve 100% of the energy in a dynamic system, you'll be a lock for a Nobel prize.

Maybe I'm over simplifying here. But, in my hurricane kit, I have a flashlight and radio with a hand crank on it. When you turn the crank for "x" number of seconds or minutes, it charges the battery enough to give you so much light or so many minutes of radio.

Also, hydroelectric power plants use water to turn massive "wheels" that generate power.

I don't see why, in theory, the rotating wheels on a coaster could be modified to generate some kind of power by spinning. I realize in 90% of cases, coaster wheels aren't attached to an axle that could spin a motor, but I think in theory that would work.

Granted, I know this will most likely never happen because it would cost too much money for too little energy production. But, that doesn't negate that fact that I believe it is possible.

Of course its possible, and some vehicles use similar tech now. You were originally implying a closed system would be self-sustainable, requiring no energy input. That's simply not possible, as it would require a perfect (lossless) system.

That sounds to just be a perpetual energy fallacy. Energy is never converted 100% efficiently. A system like this will lose energy quickly. To keep it going, you need to keep adding energy to the system.

It is possible to use the brakes of a ride to convert some energy to a stored form such as a battery or use it to power something else. This is called regenertive braking.

For example, maglev trains use energy from braking one train going downhill to help power another train going uphill. There is energy added to the system to make up for losses but it does cut down on the energy requirements. It also cuts the peak down making power transmission lines less expensive.

Hybrids use braking energy which is stored in a battery to assist acceleration later.

All either of these examples do is bleed off of the energy during braking and use it for something else. Roller coasters get more complex because of safety. Maglev trains don't need to be stopped quickly and hybrids have regular brakes on top of regenerative brakes. Magnetic brakes are safe enough but regenerative brakes are not. You would need a full set of both. Regenerative brakes are neither cost nor space effective in roller coasters.

Yeah, I did say "self-sufficient". I guess I didn't really mean that. :) I knew there would always be a need for electric supply from the grid. But, some other kind of generated power could assist the ride in conserving it's energy dependency. It was more of a high-level "what if" brainstorm than anything.

However, Cedar Point's electric bill must be outrageous. I'm surprised they haven't at least implemented some type of solar power for something to try and cut down on that bill. They're open mainly during sunny months in Ohio and I would even venture to guess they use more power on sunny days. So, it makes sense to me that harnessing the power of that sun to help them save electricity would be a good idea.

They have several massive towers that have nothing obstructing the sun, so it seems like the ideal location for some solar panels.

Ideally, yeah, solar panels would be a great idea. Though, without knowing the actual numbers, who knows whether or not the cost could be justified right now.

I estimated that every ride on MF costs about $0.80 and each launch on Top Thrill Dragster costs roughly $1.20 including lighting factor at night. They might be a bit on the high side, but still it adds up. Assuming an average of 34 riders per train and that estimate plus some empty trains for testing purposes, I figure that MF force costs roughly $40,000 per season to operate. I'm sure Cedar Point gets a discount so they don't actually pay that much. In any case, I'm sure their bill is astronomical. Dealing with their power usage is not cheap no matter which way you slice the bread. They choose the more reliable option, the grid.