Re: Digital Tools Help Users Save Energy, Study Finds

[Lewis Gardner <lgardner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Robert Green wrote:
> "Lewis Gardner" <lgardner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:4790db51$0
>
>>>>Robert Green wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>(and I KNOW you're old enough to remember the exhaust of a
>>>>>high compression 1960's V-8!),
>>>>
>>>>All other factors being equal a higher compression engine would have
>>>>lower emissions due to increased efficiency.
>>>
>>>
>>>That's way beyond niggling.
>>
>>Blah, blah, blah...
>
>
> You've gone non-sequitur on us Lewis.  There was NOTHING in the phrase "high
> compression 1960's V-8" that implies any of the absolutely bizarre things
> you've claimed.  It was a phrase meant to evoke the image (and smell) of a
> certain type of muscle car of an age gone by.  Yet you believe it's evidence
> that I either claim to be an expert on engines or that I was making some
> sort of comment on compression ratios and engine efficiency.

A lot of words prove nothing.

I boils down to this:

You claim A=B

I point out that you don't know $h!t about A so therefore your internal
combustion engine analogy obviously questionable.

I can also point out that modern landfills tend not to pollute
groundwater nearly as much as you seem to believe since the leachate is
collected and treated. Since many items in the waste stream are toxic
CFLs are only small part of this problem and are likely to remain so as
recycling efforts start to kick in.

You may convince some with your long winded rambles but you will never
convince me that more efficient lighting is a bad idea. Unfortunately
most good conservation ideas need legislation to make them work.

To put you on the right track:

All other things being equal a higher compression engine will pollute
less that a low compression engine since the fuel is burned more
efficiently. The drawback is that higher compression requires higher
octane to prevent detonation (knocking). We discuss technology here.
Using a "phrase meant to evoke" has no place in technical discussions
especially when it is a$$backwards.

What you were really getting at with your similarly misdirected "small
bore" comments are small displacement engines which are typically low
compression.

If you can begin to comprehend this you understand why I take such
exception to your ill informed rants.