Newsgroups: sci.energy

 |Bo Curry (curry@hplred.HP.COM) wrote:
 |: 
 |: Your "factual claim" was that:
 |: 
 |:  "[Bo has] been _harming_ the environment by wasting more gasoline,
 |:   due to the parasitic drag induced by having [his] car's windows open."

 |(DH):
 |Sorry Bo,  I don't really have the time, desire, or access to do the research
 |you want.  I was going by information provided here, which I felt came from a
 |reputable source, and from SAAB's engineering information books, which I trust
 |implicitly.        
 |
 |I must say that, as you mention, at low speeds there isn't much drag induced
 |by having windows open, but there's not a lot of cooling either.  I suppose
 |if you feel comfortable sweltering in the 100+ degree interior of your car,
 |with the windows open in traffic, breathing all the fumes, then that's up to
 |you.  At higher speeds, you get the cooling, but also the drag.  I don't know
 |if it's a linear relationship of speed vs. drag.
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It isn't, by a long shot. I believe it's f(v^3) for laminar flow. If the
open window induces (or modifies) turbulent flow, all bets are off. The
cooling effect is roughly linear.

So, you're admitting you don't know whether your claim was true, and that you
don't really care whether it was true. Since you are apparently withdrawing
your assertion that no A/C "harms the environment", I guess we don't
have much to argue about.

BTW, there's also a strong effect of average trip length, assuming the car
is sitting in the sun between trips.

 |:  |BTW, just what is my agenda?  What is it you are assuming?  Just curious.
 |: 
 |:  You wrote:
 |:  "Ah, the misguided do-gooder.  Perhaps the worst kind."
 |: 
 |: You still need to know something about my motivations before you can
 |: reasonably claim I'm a "misguided do-gooder".
 |

Do you deny this. Or are you withdrawing this claim as well?

 |: (BC):
 |: About your agenda:
 |: 
 |: People who season tidbits of data (Gary Coffman's numbers) liberally with
 |: unwarranted assumptions to produce strenuous conclusions are usually
 |: operating from an agenda. "Do-gooder" is one of the code-words employed by a
 |: particular class of libertarian or anti-environmental agendas, as
 |: typified by our goodbuddy JdeA and his fellow Luddites. Admittedly not
 |: as clear an indication as his pet terms, but you also suffered somewhat
 |: from guilt by association.
 |: 
 |
 |(DH):
 |Bo, Bo, Bo, Bo, BO,
 |
 |That is an interesting assumption you are making.  Let's see, I'm an anti-
 |environmental libertarian, who follows JdeA (who?)  Wow, it's amazing what
 |can be inferred (incorrectly) from one word.
 |
That's not what I said, actually. I said that those two groups, which overlap
but don't coincide, are examples of groups with agendas who tend to use
"do-gooder" as a perjorative. There are others. Also, the evidence that you
*have* an agenda is more clear-cut than the evidence as to precisely what
it is, as I admitted.
In my vocabulary, "having an agenda" on a particular issue means that one
is committed to a position on the issue for reasons independent of the merits
of the position. Usually for pecuniary or ideological reasons
(i.e. cigarette companies arguing for the safety of tobacco, or Libertarians
arguing for privatization of schools). In your case, it may simply be a
personal agenda (i.e. you enjoy the luxury of an auto A/C, and would
therefore like to believe that using one is environmentally benign).
My original posting, to which you responded, was a response to some
particularly egregious drivel by JdeA (jgd) earlier in this thread. I assumed
you had read it. His agenda is very clear.

 |Do-gooder, in MY vocabulary anyway, means the kind of person who sticks their
 |noses in other people's business, interferes with their rights, and/or has
 |a limited grasp on reality.
 |Feel free to guess which category I was putting you into.
 |

Well, since I said nothing whatever about anyone's business except my own,
it couldn't be either of the first two. And it's very strange for someone who
makes broad claims, which he subsequently admits that he neither knows nor
cares are true, to speak of "a limited grasp on reality".

It seems that a Nazi Storm Trooper would nicely fit your definition of a
"do-gooder". In MY vocabulary, the term is limited to refer to those who
have unselfish or "noble" motives for their interferences. Thus,
although the IRS sticks their nose quite forcefully into my business,
I would never refer to IRS agents as "do-gooders". Would you?

 |Examples of do-gooders would be the anti-abortion nuts, the anti-gun nuts,
 |anyone who watches the entire dem/rep convention, temperance nuts,
 |anti-sex nuts, etc. etc. etc.
 | Oh, and of course, the "I don't use an air conditioner and
 |neither should you" nuts.
 |

The "I don't use an air conditioner" is a simple statement of historical
fact, which I posted to counter the claim that such was a "necessity".
The "neither should you" is completely a figment of your imagination,
possibly induced by feelings of guilt. I challenge you to produce a quote
from any of my postings expressing any desiderata whatsoever about use of A/C.
The tendentious reading of motives into statements of fact is another hallmark
of persons harbouring an agenda.

 |Oh, and if that makes me a Libertarian, I don't have a problem with that.  Do
 |you?
 |--
 |
Well, anyone who admits to being a Libertarian is on very shaky ground
when he accuses others of having a "limited grasp on reality".

I'll clarify my position on A/C, if you want something more concrete to
argue with. I have no particular opinion on whether A/C is good or bad,
in the abstract. I believe we should make an effort to minimize the
environmental effects of A/C's, by using non-CFC working fluids and
efficient designs. What I object to is the characterization of A/C
as a "necessity", when the large majority of the world's people get
along quite well without it. I don't object to indulgence in luxuries,
mind you, so long as one is aware that that is in fact what one is
doing. To lose this awareness smacks of "creeping yuppieism",
and speaks badly of my countrymen. If we get to the point where we cannot
distinguish clearly between necessities and luxuries, we will be
poorly equiped to make difficult choices if that becomes necessary.
I realize there are those (e.g. JdeA) who deny that difficult choices
will ever become necessary. I would envy his complacency, if it weren't
so saturated with bitterness.

Bo Curry
Newsgroups: sci.energy,sci.environment