physical meaning of GasMileage expressed as an Area?

Quoting from page 64 of Brit magazine _New Scientist_ dated 26 Feb 2005
[reader Chris Bolton points out that fuel efficiency can be expressed, not only as distance/volume (eg, miles/gallon) but also as volume/distance (eg,] "liters/100 kilometers[ ) ]. But that's length-cubed divided by length, which is an area. With Google [unit converter]'s help, Bolton computed that the area achieved by his car is 0.05 square millimetres. Which, if you think about it, would be the cross-sectional area of the continuous thread of fuel required to feed the vehicle."

Well, I did think about it, trying to decide what is the physical reality of that area. At first I thought it might be the area of the total nozzle aperture of the fuel injectors. But! flow doesn't solely depend upon aperture, but rather also upon the pressure at which the fuel is pumped. And anyway, a flowing "thread" of fuel does have three dimensions.
So does this fuel-efficiency expressed as an area have a physical meaning? Is it the area under the curve of anything?

dances_with_barkadas@yahoo.com wrote:

Quoting from page 64 of Brit magazine _New Scientist_ dated 26 Feb 2005 cross-sectional area of the continuous thread of fuel required to feed the vehicle."
Well, I did think about it, trying to decide what is the physical reality of that area.

It's just like it sounds. It's the cross sectional area of the trench filled with fuel that the car sucks up as it drives along the highway. 8*)
Kinda of a strange metric...

Dear dances_with_barkadas:
wrote in message ....

So does this fuel-efficiency expressed as an area have a physical meaning? Is it the area under the curve of anything?

No. It makes no more sense (on its own) than the resistivity of a material, which is unit length over unit area (ultimately).
David A. Smith

dances_with_barkadas@yahoo.com wrote:
<snip>

So does this fuel-efficiency expressed as an area have a physical meaning? Is it the area under the curve of anything?

The 'area' is an artifact of the proxies used to measure energy consumption and work. It would be closer to the truth to use joules instead of liters / gallons of petrol / gasoline and joules of 'deliverable work' instead of kilometers / miles travelled. Just not as convenient...
The ration would then tell you something about efficiency.
Think about it: your 'mileage' should depend on a lot of other things that don't get into the calculation, such as octane rating, speed, headwind, engine rpm, and so on.
Tom Davidson Richmond, VA

wrote in message

Quoting from page 64 of Brit magazine _New Scientist_ dated 26 Feb 2005

physical meaning of IQ expressed as an Area?
Is it true that Brittian suffers an IQ shortage due to Mad Cow ? That could be and IQ of 50 per square mile.

"tadchem" writes:

dances_with_barkadas@yahoo.com wrote:
snip
So does this fuel-efficiency expressed as an area have a physical meaning? Is it the area under the curve of anything?
The 'area' is an artifact of the proxies used to measure energy consumption and work. It would be closer to the truth to use joules instead of liters / gallons of petrol / gasoline and joules of 'deliverable work' instead of kilometers / miles travelled. Just not as convenient...
The ration would then tell you something about efficiency.
Think about it: your 'mileage' should depend on a lot of other things that don't get into the calculation, such as octane rating, speed, headwind, engine rpm, and so on.

Miles/gal (or litres/km or whatever) is actually an inverse area, not an area. Its inverse (gallons/mile) is an area. This area can be represented as this: Imagine a tiny trough of gasoline along a road, and a car with a scoop to get all its fuel out of the trough. The cross sectional area of the trough is the size the car needs to travel along this road. The larger the miles/gallon figure is, the smaller the trough needed to fuel the car. In theory, of course, as in reality there are numerous problems, such as gasoline evaporating, flowing downhill, someone coming along with a match etc.
The total volume of the trough also has meaning. It is the amount of gasoline needed to run its length.

"tadchem" wrote in message

dances_with_barkadas@yahoo.com wrote:
snip
So does this fuel-efficiency expressed as an area have a physical meaning? Is it the area under the curve of anything?
The 'area' is an artifact of the proxies used to measure energy consumption and work. It would be closer to the truth to use joules instead of liters / gallons of petrol / gasoline and joules of 'deliverable work' instead of kilometers / miles travelled. Just not as convenient...
The ration would then tell you something about efficiency.
Think about it: your 'mileage' should depend on a lot of other things that don't get into the calculation, such as octane rating, speed, headwind, engine rpm, and so on.
Tom Davidson Richmond, VA

Air travel is the safest form of public transport. The shuttle system is even safer, having lost only two shuttles. The shuttle travels at 7 passengers *17,000 mph ~= 120,000 passenger miles per hour. Walking a baby buggy is definitely NOT safe at only 4 passenger miles per hour. Shuttles are 30,000 times safer than baby buggies. I don't know why young mothers put their children at risk like that. Androcles.

"J Beternoff" wrote in message

dances_with_barkadas@yahoo.com> wrote in message Quoting from page 64 of Brit magazine _New Scientist_ dated 26 Feb 2005
physical meaning of IQ expressed as an Area?
Is it true that Brittian suffers an IQ shortage due to Mad Cow ? That could be and IQ of 50 per square mile.

It might do, but at least we Britons can spell correctly! Britain an IQ WM

(taking the bait)
"Hexenmeister" writes:

Air travel is the safest form of public transport.

"Safeness" would be a percent of accidents (fatalities) passenger*mile over a given time. I would guess that every week residents within 25 miles of Pittsburgh exceed passenger*mileage of a shuttle mission. (though that'd be an interesting figure to know... how many miles does the shuttle tracel per trip?)

The shuttle system is even safer, having lost only two shuttles. A similar (misleading) "argument" could be made with drunk drivers.

"Only 25% of all accidents involve drunk drivers, so I've better odds of not being in an accident if i'm driving drunk." (figures made up)
-- May no harm befall you, flip Ich habe keine Ahnung was das bedeutet, oder vielleicht doch?

"Hexenmeister" wrote in message

"tadchem" wrote in message
dances_with_barkadas@yahoo.com wrote:
snip
So does this fuel-efficiency expressed as an area have a physical meaning? Is it the area under the curve of anything?
The 'area' is an artifact of the proxies used to measure energy consumption and work. It would be closer to the truth to use joules instead of liters / gallons of petrol / gasoline and joules of 'deliverable work' instead of kilometers / miles travelled. Just not as convenient...
The ration would then tell you something about efficiency.
Think about it: your 'mileage' should depend on a lot of other things that don't get into the calculation, such as octane rating, speed, headwind, engine rpm, and so on.
Tom Davidson Richmond, VA
Air travel is the safest form of public transport. The shuttle system is even safer, having lost only two shuttles. The shuttle travels at 7 passengers *17,000 mph ~= 120,000 passenger miles per hour. Walking a baby buggy is definitely NOT safe at only 4 passenger miles per hour. Shuttles are 30,000 times safer than baby buggies. I don't know why young mothers put their children at risk like that. Androcles.

2 shuttles out of what? 8, 3 of which are non-functional. That means we've lost 2 out of 5, that's a 40% loss. There are no ways that baby buggies are lost at that rate.

"Bruce Chang" wrote in message

"Hexenmeister" wrote in message
"tadchem" wrote in message
dances_with_barkadas@yahoo.com wrote:
snip
So does this fuel-efficiency expressed as an area have a physical meaning? Is it the area under the curve of anything?
The 'area' is an artifact of the proxies used to measure energy consumption and work. It would be closer to the truth to use joules instead of liters / gallons of petrol / gasoline and joules of 'deliverable work' instead of kilometers / miles travelled. Just not as convenient...
The ration would then tell you something about efficiency.
Think about it: your 'mileage' should depend on a lot of other things that don't get into the calculation, such as octane rating, speed, headwind, engine rpm, and so on.
Tom Davidson Richmond, VA
Air travel is the safest form of public transport. The shuttle system is even safer, having lost only two shuttles. The shuttle travels at 7 passengers *17,000 mph ~= 120,000 passenger miles per hour. Walking a baby buggy is definitely NOT safe at only 4 passenger miles per hour. Shuttles are 30,000 times safer than baby buggies. I don't know why young mothers put their children at risk like that. Androcles.

2 shuttles out of what? 8, 3 of which are non-functional. That means we've lost 2 out of 5, that's a 40% loss. There are no ways that baby buggies are lost at that rate.

Safety is measured by passenger miles, the airline industries all agree the more passenger miles there are the safer it is. Besides, babies grow out of baby buggies faster than astronauts grow out of shuttles, the attrition rate is enormous. A baby buggy lasts for only 2 years. If you take a walk for 1 hour a day, that's 730 hours for the life of a baby buggy. Same for most cars, really. Cars cost say $20,000, add insurance and fuel and maintenance, call it $40 an hour. Makes me wonder how I ever afforded one. I shoulda been an airline pilot and travelled for free. Staying home is an even less safe form of transport. You get ZERO passenger miles that way.
Androcles.

convert to moles per horsepower at a gambol, please; thank *you*.
thus: I was going to say that the "map, below," was 3-colorable, but the formatting became clear upon clicking for replying. anyway, that is also the "neccesity" part of the 4-color proof, a.k.a. "the tetrahedron, q.e.d." on a sphere (more or less; your further result is the same, as coloring/labelling the surrounding space .-)

Please explain how a map demanding 5 colors can demand 5 colors without having 5 countries bordering each other? Anything except the specious argument about a 4-color graph not requiring 4 mutually adjacent countries! Consider the simple map below ---------------------------------------- | A | |----------------------------------------| | | | | | B | C | D | | |______| | |__________ |___________ |
If the analogy were valid, you could add country E between B & D, just below C and get a 5-color map . And there are no 5 countries bordering each other.
But the analogy is not valid. Adding E actually makes the map 3-C.
------------------------------------------ | A | |----------------------------------------| | | | | | B | C | D | | |______| | |_______ |__E__|_________|

--Give Earth a Trickier Dick Cheeny -- out of office, after gigayears! http://larouchepub.com/other/2003/3045dems_dive_soros.html http://tarpley.net/bush8.htm http://www.benfranklinbooks.com/ http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac http://www.wlym.com/pdf/iclc/howthenation.pdf http://larouchepub.com/other/2003/3048iraq_58_const.html http://www.rand.org/publications/randreview/issues/rr.12.00/ http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/plates/figs/plate01.html

"Hexenmeister" wrote in message

"Bruce Chang" wrote in message
"Hexenmeister" wrote in message
"tadchem" wrote in message
dances_with_barkadas@yahoo.com wrote:
snip
So does this fuel-efficiency expressed as an area have a physical meaning? Is it the area under the curve of anything?
The 'area' is an artifact of the proxies used to measure energy consumption and work. It would be closer to the truth to use joules instead of liters / gallons of petrol / gasoline and joules of 'deliverable work' instead of kilometers / miles travelled. Just not as convenient...
The ration would then tell you something about efficiency.
Think about it: your 'mileage' should depend on a lot of other things that don't get into the calculation, such as octane rating, speed, headwind, engine rpm, and so on.
Tom Davidson Richmond, VA
Air travel is the safest form of public transport. The shuttle system is even safer, having lost only two shuttles. The shuttle travels at 7 passengers *17,000 mph ~= 120,000 passenger miles per hour. Walking a baby buggy is definitely NOT safe at only 4 passenger miles per hour. Shuttles are 30,000 times safer than baby buggies. I don't know why young mothers put their children at risk like that. Androcles.

2 shuttles out of what? 8, 3 of which are non-functional. That means we've lost 2 out of 5, that's a 40% loss. There are no ways that baby buggies are lost at that rate.
Safety is measured by passenger miles, the airline industries all agree the more passenger miles there are the safer it is. Besides, babies grow out of baby buggies faster than astronauts grow out of shuttles, the attrition rate is enormous. A baby buggy lasts for only 2 years. If you take a walk for 1 hour a day, that's 730 hours for the life of a baby buggy. Same for most cars, really. Cars cost say $20,000, add insurance and fuel and maintenance, call it $40 an hour. Makes me wonder how I ever afforded one. I shoulda been an airline pilot and travelled for free. Staying home is an even less safe form of transport. You get ZERO passenger miles that way.

Airline "passenger miles" measure the distance between the starting airport and the destination airport. Under those rules, how many miles does the average shuttle fly?

tadchem wrote:

dances_with_barkadas@yahoo.com wrote:
snip
So does this fuel-efficiency expressed as an area have a physical meaning? Is it the area under the curve of anything?
The 'area' is an artifact of the proxies used to measure energy consumption and work. It would be closer to the truth to use joules instead of liters / gallons of petrol / gasoline and joules of 'deliverable work' instead of kilometers / miles travelled. Just not as convenient...
The ration would then tell you something about efficiency.
Think about it: your 'mileage' should depend on a lot of other things that don't get into the calculation, such as octane rating, speed, headwind, engine rpm, and so on.
cost of fuel...

-- derek

Hexenmeister wrote:

Safety is measured by passenger miles, the airline industries all agree the more passenger miles there are the safer it is. Besides, babies grow out of baby buggies faster than astronauts grow out of shuttles, the attrition rate is enormous. A baby buggy lasts for only 2 years. If you take a walk for 1 hour a day, that's 730 hours for the life of a baby buggy. Same for most cars, really. Cars cost say $20,000, add insurance and fuel and maintenance, call it $40 an hour. Makes me wonder how I ever afforded one. I

There's some serious problems with your assumptions - a baby buggy typically lasts much more than two years. I think all 4 kids in our family used the same one, then it was passed on to friends - figure maybe 8 kids * 16 years. It's the same with cars - I did spend $20,000 on the truck, but it's now 13 1/2 years old. My current car cost under $7000: bought used and run for 2 years, so far. -- derek