From owner-diesel-benz-digest-at-digest.net Fri Feb 2 20:22:35 2007 From: diesel-benz-digest diesel-benz-digest Saturday, February 3 2007 Volume 01 : Number 2378 Forum for Discussion of Diesel Mercedes Benz Automobiles Derick Amburgey Digest Coordinator Contents: RE: [db] The latest fun... [db] RE: fsj: OT: climate (was "100 million gallons of bioDiesel a year") OT (way OT) - Re: fsj: Re: [db] 100 million gallons of bioDiesel a year RE: [db] The latest fun... (fwd) Re: [db] The latest fun... (fwd) RE: [db] The latest fun... (fwd) RE: [db] The latest fun... (fwd) Re: [db] The latest fun... (fwd) Re: [db] RE: fsj: OT: climate (was "100 million gallons of bioDiesel a year") Diesel Benz Digest Home Page: http://www.digest.net/diesel-benz/ Send submissions to diesel-benz-digest-at-digest.net Send administrative requests to diesel-benz-digest-request-at-digest.net To unsubscribe, include the word unsubscribe by itself in the body of the message, unless you are sending the request from a different address than the one that appears on the list. Include the word help in a message to stag-digest-request to get a list of other majordomo commands. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 08:02:16 -0800 (PST) From: john Subject: RE: [db] The latest fun... ok, here's my thoughts... both engines are roughly the same displacement per cylinder, give or take... the Injection PUMP is what determines the amount of fuel, not the injector... the injectors on a turbo will have a heavier spring to overcome the increased cylinder pressure. therefore, it's possible that you will either get better fuel economy using the 5 cyl TD injectors on the 240D, or you'll offer too much resistance to your IP... THAT does not seem likely as it uses a cam to create the pressure and not a diaghram like some do. I say give it a whirl, keep careful measurement of your economy. john On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, jasonbassett-at-juno.com wrote: >-->Jim has my number! And a good guess about the difference, too, though >-->I have to wonder if the tip architecture isn't a bit different to >-->withstand the bigger bangs of a turbo motor. But does anybody know for >-->sure what the difference is? >--> >-->Jason >--> >-->-- "Jim Hoffman" wrote: >-->Well, if I were to take a guess, I'd say his question is >-->will they physically fit in the holes and squirt fuel >-->so he can see if the engine will run. >--> >-->My "guess" is that the difference between a turbo and >-->non-turbo injector is the amount of fuel it squirts. >-->More air from the turbo needs more fuel from the >-->injector... No? >--> >-->If that assumption is correct, then the wrong injector >-->might get the car running but not very well since it won't >-->be injecting the right amount of fuel... >--> >-->Just a thought... >--> >-->Jim >--> >-->> If I knew what the heck he was talking about in English >-->> I might be able to help, but I ain't got time to look >-->> up what an Oh My is... I have swapped injectors on >-->> a 4.0L... it worked, but gas mileage went down and >-->> the cat converter burned up... but for a while there >-->> I could beat a 5.0L mustang up the clearview hill. :) >-->> >-->> john >-->> >-->> On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Alec Cordova wrote: >-->> >-->> >-->You gotta love a question like that. >-->> >-->(munch, munch) >-->> >--> >-->> >-->Alec >-->> >--> >-->> >-->> >-->> >-->> Different as in "won't work at all" or different as in "I can >-->test it >-->> >-->> with the others but they'll eventually fry so I should plan to >-->get the >-->> >-->> right ones soon"? >-->> >-->> >-->> >-->> Jason >-->> >-->>> >-->> >-->>> -- "Jim Steere" wrote: >-->> >-->>> The OM616 (240D) and the non-turbo OM617 injectors will >-->interchange. >-->> >-->>> Injectors are different in the turbo-ed OM617. >-->> >-->>> >-->> >-->>> Jim >-->> >--> >-->> >-->> ----- >-->> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >-->- >-->> Snohomish, Washington -o|||||o- where Jeeps don't rust, they mold >-->> http://freegift.com ** http://wagoneers.com ** >-->> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >-->- >--> ----- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Snohomish, Washington -o|||||o- where Jeeps don't rust, they mold http://freegift.com ** http://wagoneers.com ** - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 11:32:10 -0800 (PST) From: john Subject: [db] RE: fsj: OT: climate (was "100 million gallons of bioDiesel a year") On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Tesar Landon-r16884 wrote: >-->I'll throw in a few comments about statistics. >--> >-->When I hear '90% certainty...' as I have heard it in the last few days, >-->I interpret that someone has done a design of experiments to determine >-->the significance of multiple variables in a multiple linear regression. yeah, 90% certain of what? what's the sample size? standard deviation? what was alpha? what was the hypothesis? how many degrees of freedom? what tests did they use on the data? dang, I'm starting to sound like a flippin' statistician... 90% certainty of the probability that we used math of some kind to support our view on this topic... ;) oh, just in case you actually wanted to read this report, it can be found at: http://www.junkscience.com/draft_AR4/ Read the Executive Summary and see if there isn't the potential for bias in this report: http://www.junkscience.com/draft_AR4/Ch01_SOD_Text_TSU_FINAL.pdf example: As climate science and the Earth's climate have continued to evolve over recent decades, increasing evidence of anthropogenic influences on climate change has been found. Therefore, the IPCC has made increasingly more definitive statements about human impacts on climate. Time frame cited, "recent decades". Note the emphasis on their view of "anthropogenic influences". Based on these notes it would seem to a casual observer that this paper did not consider other factors and approached this study subjectively. As a researcher I would consider this information biased, subjective, and questionable. The question one has to ask, "are there other explanations or possibilities that might be considered?" Questions will lead to the truth. Understand the assumptions, and biases, we all have them. Recognizing that you have them and seeking to counter arguments before they are presented results in the most objective possible collection of data. john ----- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Snohomish, Washington -o|||||o- where Jeeps don't rust, they mold http://freegift.com ** http://wagoneers.com ** - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 12:22:59 -0800 (PST) From: john Subject: OT (way OT) - Re: fsj: Re: [db] 100 million gallons of bioDiesel a year On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Stephen Cahill wrote: > -->Hello John > -->Have a look at this > -->http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1584992,00.html > --> > -->Still not 100% but up to 90 % agree. thanx Stephen, interesting... from that page: IPCC scientists now say that it is "very likely" that global warming is chiefly driven by the buildup of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases caused by human activity, and that dangerous levels of warming and sea rise are on the way. Those two words . the product of 2,500 scientists, 130 nations and 6 years of work . translates into a certainty of over 90%, up from the 66 to 90% chance the panel reported in its last major climate change assessment in 2001. - ------------------------------ a) they assume that buildup of C02 results from human activity and that this casues warming... neither are testable or proven. It's an assumption based on a model, the number of variables involved are unmanageable. You can not control the experiment or even identify all the variables that play into this. b) from of 2,500 scientists... hmmm... how large of a population are we really dealing with? 90% of 2,500 in 130 countries does not represent a very large population. How many scientists are there worldwide? When you say scientist, what do you mean? Someone who works in a lab? Someone with a BS degree? an MS? a PhD? Let's consider, briefly, an alternate hypothesis. Let's assume that the world was created by a superior being who has revealed himself through writings. These writings provide us with a model that indicate that the world is thousands, and not millions of years old. Let's further assume that these writings are accurate, for the sake of a comparision of models. These writings indicate that a global flood took place around four thousand years ago, give or take. Prior to this flood, according to these writings, there was a water vapor canopy over the entire planet, constant and uniform temperature over the entire planet (explains why there is oil on the North Shore of Alaska.) When the global flood took place, it would have resulted in an ice age as that canopy and it's protection would have been removed. Now, a few thousand years later, we can see evidence that this ice age has been receding... glacial till in North America is a prime example... Sure, the planet is warming up, and probably been doing it for the last few thousand years. Examining this alternate hypothesis you can see that this model answers many questions. Question comes down to what is your world view? Do you accept by faith that we just evolved some how, from someplace, despite the overwhelming and complicated problems of life forming on it's own, or do you accept by faith these writings? Either model requires faith. What's quite interesting to observe is the animosity and hostility that is presented toward the model that is based on ancient writings. There is something more going on there than "science". Open hostility by man toward a creator being. (which is exactly what those writings claim as well...) Anyway, my point is this. One must understand the assumptions that these models are built on. We can not be totally objective, unbiased and neutural, by nature we're going to take sides. The emotional response by those that reject the writings model indicate that there is cognitive dissonance involved. Bottom line, ask questions, drill down into the data, understand who the researchers are and what their model is based on. Yeah, the world is probably getting warmer, but it isn't because of our vehicles, or cow farts. It's because the planet is recovering from a global catastrophic event that resulted in the ice age. So those eskimos had better consider finding solid land to live on. :) and, I would think we should probably wrap up this thread and return to discussions on Jeeps, Diesels and resume the popcorn events... :) interesting and friendly discussions... thought provoking. btw, my '48 cj-2a is running again, not sure when it'll return from the shop yet... but it's getting closer. still thinking that I should run the '91 GW into the body shop and get it all fixed up. My '91 300d has been having some odd idiot light activity... time to open the hood and check a few things I guess. john ----- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Snohomish, Washington -o|||||o- where Jeeps don't rust, they mold http://freegift.com ** http://wagoneers.com ** - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 14:50:11 -0800 (PST) From: john Subject: RE: [db] The latest fun... (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "jasonbassett-at-juno.com" HAHAHAHA! Don't you love sleepers? Pull up to the light....rev up...and embarass the life out of some "high-powered car" owner! Anyway, the OM616 is the 2.4l engine in a 240D. The OM617 is the 3.0l 5-cylinder used in the late '70s and early '80s. Both are diesel. And both had some serious "Oh My" factor! Jason - -- john wrote: If I knew what the heck he was talking about in English I might be able to help, but I ain't got time to look up what an Oh My is... I have swapped injectors on a 4.0L... it worked, but gas mileage went down and the cat converter burned up... but for a while there I could beat a 5.0L mustang up the clearview hill. :) john On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Alec Cordova wrote: >-->You gotta love a question like that. >-->(munch, munch) >--> >-->Alec >--> >-->> >-->> Different as in "won't work at all" or different as in "I can test it >-->> with the others but they'll eventually fry so I should plan to get the >-->> right ones soon"? >-->> >-->> Jason >-->>> >-->>> -- "Jim Steere" wrote: >-->>> The OM616 (240D) and the non-turbo OM617 injectors will interchange. >-->>> Injectors are different in the turbo-ed OM617. >-->>> >-->>> Jim >--> ----- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Snohomish, Washington -o|||||o- where Jeeps don't rust, they mold http://freegift.com ** http://wagoneers.com ** - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 15:08:12 -0800 From: Kevin Subject: Re: [db] The latest fun... (fwd) On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 02:50:11PM -0800, john wrote: > From: "jasonbassett-at-juno.com" > > HAHAHAHA! Don't you love sleepers? Pull up to the light....rev > up...and embarass the life out of some "high-powered car" owner! Yup. the 74 hornet wagon with factory v8 was good for surprising people, so was the 77 cherokee with a 401. Most fun stomp was in the old ford dually, whose 460 took a third gen camaro and a 5.0 mustang. WHILE TOWING A TRAILER. :) Haven't really won any bragging rights in the benzes, though the 190D showed a chevy sprint what was up. Was a hard fight, he must have not had A/C :) K ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 19:11:47 -0600 From: "Alec Cordova" Subject: RE: [db] The latest fun... (fwd) Don't make me dig out the old 240D drag race story for the newbies... Alec > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-diesel-benz-at-digest.net > [mailto:owner-diesel-benz-at-digest.net]On Behalf Of Kevin > Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 5:08 PM > To: diesel-benz-at-digest.net > Subject: Re: [db] The latest fun... (fwd) > > > On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 02:50:11PM -0800, john wrote: > > From: "jasonbassett-at-juno.com" > > > > HAHAHAHA! Don't you love sleepers? Pull up to the light....rev > > up...and embarass the life out of some "high-powered car" owner! > > Yup. the 74 hornet wagon with factory v8 was good for surprising people, > so was the 77 cherokee with a 401. Most fun stomp was in the old > ford dually, > whose 460 took a third gen camaro and a 5.0 mustang. WHILE TOWING > A TRAILER. :) > > Haven't really won any bragging rights in the benzes, though the > 190D showed > a chevy sprint what was up. Was a hard fight, he must have not had A/C :) > > K ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 17:23:41 -0800 (PST) From: john Subject: RE: [db] The latest fun... (fwd) On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Alec Cordova wrote: >-->Don't make me dig out the old 240D drag race story for the newbies... >-->Alec it's in the digests... have a google search tool on the main page. :) john ----- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Snohomish, Washington -o|||||o- where Jeeps don't rust, they mold http://freegift.com ** http://wagoneers.com ** - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 17:23:38 -0800 From: Kevin Subject: Re: [db] The latest fun... (fwd) HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA I think it might be time. On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 07:11:47PM -0600, Alec Cordova wrote: > Don't make me dig out the old 240D drag race story for the newbies... ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 04:16:45 GMT From: "jasonbassett-at-juno.com" Subject: Re: [db] RE: fsj: OT: climate (was "100 million gallons of bioDiesel a year") Here's the real scoop, as said by talk show host Neal Boortz on his web site (boortz.com) - ----------------------------- Friday - Februgly 2, 2007 WHY AM I SKEPTICAL ABOUT MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING? A 21-page report from something called the "Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change" has been released today...in Paris, no less...and as expected, it's predictions are dire. According to the report: "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level." Yeah right...we've heard all this before. But the biggest bombshell here is this one: no matter what we do, global warming will not be reversed. It will go on for centuries, according to this report. The sea levels will continue to rise as polar ice caps melt. So I guess if Al Gore wins his Nobel Peace Prize, we'll still experience global warming. So much for riding to work everyday in your hybrid car...it's not doing a thing. The situation is futile, according to this report. But really, it makes sense that the global warming crowd would come to this conclusion. After all, global warming is a religion. The anti- capitalist enviro-nazis don't ever want the problem to be solved. After all, if global warming were to be solved tomorrow, what would they blame the United States for? They'd have to find some other reason. Sorry .. I'm still a skeptic. In no particular order here are just a few of the reasons why I'm not buying this man-made global warming scare: The United Nations is anti-American and anti-Capitalist. In short .. I don't trust them. Not a bit. The UN would eagerly engage in any enterprise that would weaken capitalist economies around the world. Because after the fall of the Soviet Union and worldwide Communism many in the anti-capitalist movement moved to the environmental movement to continue pursuing their anti-free enterprise goals. Many of the loudest proponents of man-made global warming today are confirmed anti-capitalists. Because the sun is warmer .. and all of these scientists don't seem to be willing to credit a warmer sun with any of the blame for global warming. The polar ice caps on Mars are melting. How did our CO2 emissions get all the way to Mars? It was warmer in the 1930s across the globe than it is right now. It wasn't all that long ago that these very same scientists were warning us about "global cooling" and another approaching ice age? How much has the earth warmed up in the last 100 years? One degree. Now that's frightening. Because that famous "hockey stick" graph that purports to show a sudden warming of the earth in the last few decades is a fraud. It ignored previous warming periods ... left them off the graph altogether. The infamous Kyoto accords exempt some of the world's biggest CO2 polluters, including China and India. The Kyoto accords can easily be seen as nothing less than an attempt to hamstring the world's dominant capitalist economies. Because many of these scientists who are sounding the global warming scare depend on grant money for their livelihood, and they know the grant money dries up when they stop preaching the global warming sermon. Because global warming "activists" and scientists seek to punish those who have different viewpoints. If you are sure of your science you have no need to shout down or seek to punish those who disagree. What happened to the Medieval Warm Period? In 1996 the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a chart showing climatic change over a period of 1000 years. This graph showed a Medieval warming period in which global temperatures were higher than they are today. In 2001 the IPCC issued another 1000 year graph in which the Medieval warming period was missing. Why? Why has one scientist promoting the cause of man-made global warming been quoted as saying "we have to get rid of the medieval warming period?" Why is the ice cap on the Antarctic getting thicker if the earth is getting warmer? In the United State, the one country with the most accurate temperature measuring and reporting records, temperatures have risen by 0.3 degrees centigrade over the past 100 years. The UN estimate is twice that. There are about 160,000 glaciers around the world. Most have never been visited or measured by man. The great majority of these glaciers are growing, not melting. Side-looking radar interferometry shows that the ise mass in the West Antarctic is growing at a rate of over 26 gigatons a year. This reverses a melting trend that had persisted for the previous 6,000 years. Rising sea levels? The sea levels have been rising since the last ice age ended. That was 12,000 years ago. Estimates are that in that time the sea level has risen by over 300 feet. The rise in our sea levels has been going on long before man started creating anything but natural CO2 emissions. Like Antarctica, the interior of Greenland is gaining ice mass. Over the past 3,000 years there have been five different extended periods when the earth was measurably warmer than it is today. During the last 20 years -- a period of the highest carbon dioxide levels -- global temperatures have actually decreased. That's right ... decreased. Why did a reporter from National Public Radio refuse to interview David Deming, an associate professor at the University of Oklahoma studying global warming, after his testimony to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee unless Deming would state that global warming was being caused by man? Why are global warming proponents insisting that the matter is settled and that no further scientific research is needed? Why are they afraid of additional information? On July 24, 1974 Time Magazine published an article entitled "Another Ice Age?" Here's the first paragraph: "As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age." Hey ... I could go on. There's much more where that came from. But I need to get ready to go on the air. Just know that many of the strongest proponents of this "man-made" global warming stuff are dedicated opponents to capitalism and don't feel all that warm and fuzzy about the United States. [-Neal] - -- john wrote: On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Tesar Landon-r16884 wrote: >-->I'll throw in a few comments about statistics. >--> >-->When I hear '90% certainty...' as I have heard it in the last few days, >-->I interpret that someone has done a design of experiments to determine >-->the significance of multiple variables in a multiple linear regression. yeah, 90% certain of what? what's the sample size? standard deviation? what was alpha? what was the hypothesis? how many degrees of freedom? what tests did they use on the data? dang, I'm starting to sound like a flippin' statistician... 90% certainty of the probability that we used math of some kind to support our view on this topic... ;) oh, just in case you actually wanted to read this report, it can be found at: http://www.junkscience.com/draft_AR4/ Read the Executive Summary and see if there isn't the potential for bias in this report: http://www.junkscience.com/draft_AR4/Ch01_SOD_Text_TSU_FINAL.pdf example: As climate science and the Earth's climate have continued to evolve over recent decades, increasing evidence of anthropogenic influences on climate change has been found. Therefore, the IPCC has made increasingly more definitive statements about human impacts on climate. Time frame cited, "recent decades". Note the emphasis on their view of "anthropogenic influences". Based on these notes it would seem to a casual observer that this paper did not consider other factors and approached this study subjectively. As a researcher I would consider this information biased, subjective, and questionable. The question one has to ask, "are there other explanations or possibilities that might be considered?" Questions will lead to the truth. Understand the assumptions, and biases, we all have them. Recognizing that you have them and seeking to counter arguments before they are presented results in the most objective possible collection of data. john ----- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Snohomish, Washington -o|||||o- where Jeeps don't rust, they mold http://freegift.com ** http://wagoneers.com ** - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of diesel-benz-digest V1 #2378 **********************************