Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 September 15

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 15

Can this be an exhaust mechanism to expel hot air?

If I put simple vents (just holes and pipes, no conical receptacle) on a flat concrete roof, will that draw out the hot air indoors, like a chimney does? 59.91.254.103 (talk) 03:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Nome. Not unless it's hotter inside than outside. 124.30.235.62 (talk) 06:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You need a either a heat or pressure differential for any vent pipe to move air in or out of a building. If there is some breeze entering the lower part of the building, a roof vent will allow accumulated hot air to exit from the top portion of the enclosed space. Otherwise, as noted above, the air movement will depend on the heat difference and won't be particularly efficient, unless you have a very large vent.

When you say "conical receptacle", if you mean the little hat sitting over the vent pipe, that is to prevent turbulence effects which interfere with air exit (and keep rain out). If you do have breeze, a whirlybird-type cap might more effectively remove air. And of course, you can use a fan (with vent cap) to move the air - again though, before you start punching holes through your roof, where is the cooler air going to come from? Franamax (talk) 09:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the title: Can this be an exhaust mechanism to expel hot air? Assuming that "hot air" is hotter than the air outside, then yes. Plasticup ^T/C 14:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That's precisely why much traditional Arabic architecture employs minarets. You may consider jutting a piece of pipe a few feet up, not so much that it can be seen from the street, but enough to catch some extra breeze above the lip of the roof. And cover the pipe somehow (the least amount possible) to prevent rain entering or birds nesting. But as mentioned earlier, you need to allow air to come in on the ground level for it to work. - Lambajan 15:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You describe a method of passive cooling. You might be interested in our articles stack effect and solar chimney. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone responding. There was enough information already on Wikipedia as linked by User:Itsmejudith; only that I had no clue to search where. I was talking about a tropical situation where sunlight greatly heats up the concrete roof. The air inside the room would very hot. If you switch on the ceiling fan you will feel the heat coming down. By conical receptacle I meant the suction part of a chimney which is often conical in shape. I assume that the if the vent pipes were to draw properly, some sort of extra heating would be necessary, as happens in solar chimney. 59.91.253.148 (talk) 03:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

How close of a call was it?

The metrolink accident has made me look into rail safety around the world. I see in List of rail accidents that I've recently been on many of the lines that have had HUGE disasters. It seems fire on a train creates the worst disasters Al Ayyat train disaster. I remember traveling through Tanzania on TAZARA and riding through a brush fire. The fire was so close that we could hear loud crackling and the heat felt similar to standing three feet from an open home oven. One person in my compartment was the son of a railway engineer and had a pass that allowed him to frequently take the line. He told me he had never seen anything like it before. Was it careless of TAZARA to run through a close brush fire? What were the odds of an incident?

Lotsofissues 04:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Did the fire span over a long stretch of track? Perhaps the conductor decided that stopping would be a greater danger. By the time the train stopped, it might have ended up in the middle of the fire—not the safest place to be! — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I moving and seeing fire for at least 8 minutes. Most of the time the fire would only be visible, but sometimes the fire was close enough to activate other senses. Lotsofissues 05:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The train engineer could have stopped the train (which can take 1km or so to do, and you stop where you stop) and left themself and the passengers in the middle of a brush fire - or radio ahead for the conditions and just keep going. Rail accidents are more commonly caused by poor track maintenance (derailments) and mistakes setting the points (collisions). Franamax (talk) 09:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

And, as apparently in this case, by failure to obey signals. Of course many other different causes are possible -- including fire. --Anonymous, 15:15 UTC, September 15, 2008.

Of course at this point in the investigation they can't possibly know that the signal was translated into the correct lighted bulb. It could be that the right signal was sent from the station (or wherever they are sent from) but the wrong signal was displayed on the track. Lots of people have come out saying that the preliminary conclusions are nowhere near as conclusive as they sound. Plasticup ^T/C 02:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

For sure; that's why I said "apparently". In practice, it's a lot more common for the train driver to get it wrong, and if the stories about text messaging are correct then we also know he was distracted. But the signal or the person controlling it could certainly also be at fault. (For an example, follow my "causes" link above.) --Anonymous, 04:42 UTC, September 16, 2008.

Boil Advisory, Boil Order?

What is a Boil Advisory and/or a Boil Order ? I am under one. Got caught in Hurricane Ike, and my city govt. issued a "Boil Advisory" today, because the water processing area was damaged and power was out. Powerzilla (talk) 04:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It means you are strongly recommended to boil all water before using it. See Boil-water advisory. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not the only one that is affected by Hurricane Ike. Got power restored today, Internet access shortly after that. Several towns are under this order, as inspections for damage, etc. continue, more towns get this order. Powerzilla (talk) 05:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I heart wiki. Lots of <3

We had a boil advisory here in the Washington DC suburbs some months ago because a large water main broke. The advisory was precautionary (they don't have water police to come check on you) but remained in effect until 48 hours of testing showed no harmful elements in the water. My point is that the advisories are not limited to huge disasters like hurricanes; they can be local emergencies as well. --- OtherDave (talk) 11:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe you got emergency healthcare advice (something on which your life might depend), didn't understand it, and asked a pile of random guys on the internet! And believed their answer! Fortunately they were right. DJ Clayworth (talk) 04:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You'd be surprised. The other day we had a guy on hear saying "My friend has a heart condition and terrible pains in his chest. What should we do?" Plasticup ^T/C 04:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

And "we" got that one wrong, at least until I came along, by not saying that this is an emergency and an ambulance should be called. There's medical advice and then there's knowing what's an emergency. --Anon, 04:17, September 16, 2008.

Poisons

What is the most commonly available, and yet, potentially lethal poison that can kill a human being? And, has anyone used said poison to commit suicide yet?? 117.194.227.156 (talk) 07:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, for starters, good old nicotine is pretty nasty stuff. It's really easy to obtain, as your average cigarette probably contains about 1.5 mg of it, and apparently 40-60 mg can be lethal for adults. The reason smoking a couple of packs doesn't kill you is simply that most of the nicotine ends up outside your body. And yes, millions and millions of people have killed themselves with nicotine, but that's probably not what you mean. I'm unaware of any specific incident in which someone set out to kill themselves with it, but I'm sure someone has done it. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 07:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually I wouldn't be so sure that "millions and millions of people have killed themselves with nicotine", if you're talking about tobacco smoking. A substantial majority of tobacco deaths are, I imagine (with no medical advice implied!), caused more by the "tar" than by the nicotine. Not that nicotine is exactly good for you—the nicotine article details ways in which it can contribute to cardiovascular disease—but I doubt that epidemiology has any way to tell how much the nicotine really contributes to that ("tar" also causes cardiovascular disease, and so does carbon monoxide, and so does particulate smoke).

The thing that irks me about this is the resistance to the development of a delivery system for nicotine as a recreational drug, without the other noxious substances in tobacco. I think that could save a huge number of lives. Instead the FDA wants to limit the amount of nicotine in cigarettes—reduce the substance that causes the pleasure rather than the substances that cause cancer.

(Oh, one last thing—the 1.5 mg in a cigarette is the delivered dose; there's lots more than that in the cigarette before it's burned. I wouldn't be surprised if the nicotine you get from smoking two packs would kill you, if you got it all at once and hadn't built up a tolerance. But I'm speculating.)

Carbon monoxide is pretty poisonous. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You can be sure that people have used commonly available poisons to kiil themselves. Many household chemicals are poisonous (and will cause a prolonged and painful death, so perhaps we shouldn't be too specific in case you are thinking of using them yourself).--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Living is 100% lethal. Franamax (talk) 09:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Things like arsenic and strychnine were often sold over the counter in Victorian times to kill off rats...and unwanted husbands,wives,etc. Lemon martini (talk) 10:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

And there's no metabolic pathway for alcohol. See alcohol poisoning. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Consuming a large quantity of salt would kill a person. Useight (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

... or consuming a large quantity of water. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Paracetamol is widely available and lethal. DuncanHill (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, your local hardware or gardening supply store no doubt stocks dozens of items which are intended to serve as poisons. (While most aren't targeted specifically at mammals like us, a sufficient dose would certainly do you in.) Rat poisons containing warfarin ought to be effective. Most over-the-counter insecticides, herbicides, and pesticides are toxic at some dose. I'm sure that someone, somewhere, at some time, has died – or come close to it – through deliberate or accidental misuse of virtually all of these products. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Oxygen 98.169.163.20 (talk) 02:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Oxygen is only toxic under pressure. Carbon dioxide, which is present in every breath you exhale, is lethally toxic (not just suffocating) at a concentration of about 20% in air. Drinking too much water can also be lethal. Are those substances common enough for you? --Anonymous, 04:25 UTC, September 16, 2008.

When you come right down to it - it's kinda tricky to find something that ISN'T toxic under some circumstances. Anyway - my vote goes for Ethylene glycol - the main ingredient of anti-freeze. One mouthful is enough to kill an adult. One 'lick' is enough to kill a small child or a cat or dog. Since it tastes and smells sweet and it's usually a pretty color (like Gatorade actually) - it's a disaster waiting to happen. For suicides, I think Carbon Monoxide is a common poison for suicidal people. Shut the garage door - start the car engine. SteveBaker (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Surprisingly, no. One of the most dramatic measures of how clean modern car engines are is that almost nobody commits suicide by running the car in an enclosed space anymore. --Carnildo (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

My vote would be aspirin, which has led to many deaths in infants who have taken overdoses of this drug. Saukkomies 09:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

T.V Costings

How much would a 40 to 60cm flat screen T.V cost? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.83.26 (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Where are you? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That would depend, among other things, on where you live. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

In the UK, the Argos catalogue has 19inch tvs starting at GBP150.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm in Australia. 220.233.83.26 (talk) 08:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is a 20" LCD TV for AUD 725. You could search for others on that site too. Fribbler (talk) 11:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

WalMart (Texas, USA) $220. SteveBaker (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Flat screen or flat panel? For a couple of years flat screen TVs were all the rage. They are like normal CRT sets except that the screen doesn't have that slight curve in it. Then they came out with the thin flat panel sets that weigh like 2 lbs and mount on the wall all sexy-like. I have the former :-( Plasticup ^T/C 04:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Chinese Culture

Could someone give me a brief explination about Chinese Culture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.83.26 (talk) 07:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Culture of the People's Republic of China. I don't think it would be easy to give a brief description. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Reminds of Woody Allen's joke about speed-reading War and Peace in 20 minutes – "It was about Russia". So hey here's a try: there's a comedy club for standups in Hong Kong and the HK International Comedy Festival. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Or Monty Python's Summarising Proust competition. But a game we can all join in. Paintings of pine trees. Stir-frying in soy sauce. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The one I liked was the Peanuts comic where Charlie Brown kept on begging Lucy to tell him a story. Exasperated, she said "There was a man. He lived, and he died. The end". -- JackofOz (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I seem to remember it being Linus doing the begging. His response to her story was something like "Wow, I almost feel like I knew the man..." jeffjon (talk) 12:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

How's this: China has had periods of stability that eventually end, resulting in periods of chaos, which in turn then end when a strong ruler emerges that once again establishes a new period of stability. These periods are called Dynasties, and they last anywhere from 14 to 600 years. It could be theoretically argued that the current regime in power in China (the Communist Party) is just another Dynasty. Of course that really doesn't fully address your question, which was specifically about Chinese culture, but it's a quick take on China's history, which helps provide some of a basic foundation to understand the cultural aspects of China. Saukkomies 09:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

...or periods of instability that eventually end. It's like whether the cup is half full or half empty, although in this case the instable periods are much shorter than the (mostly) stable periods. --antilived^{T | C | G} 04:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

New Mexico cliffs

Is there really a Four Fingers mesas in New Mexico? I saw the cliffs in Outrageous Fortune. They were where Lauren was taking leaps with Michael in pursuit.72.229.139.13 (talk) 08:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Outrageous Fortune was filmed near Santa Fe and Abiquiu, New Mexico. There are a lot of beautiful rock formations near there. Corvus cornix_talk 20:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Copycat urban legends

Have there ever been any cases of someone hearing an urban legend and acting on it, turning it from contemporary mythology to an actual documented event? Bradley10 (talk) 12:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Not quite an urban legend, but close:IP over Avian Carriers. -Arch dude (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Snopes refers to this as pseudo-ostention. --ColinFine (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Practically every episode of Mythbusters. SteveBaker (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone here actually been present when an event usually described as being an UL has occurred? I have once - and I get accused of 'talking shit' by people who think they know everything whenever I try to tell the story. Which is irritating. It's this one, FWIW. I was there when it happened and I could name fifteen other people that witnessed it too. I could even name the girl, if I had any particular desire to do to. It was in a sex education lesson at school when we were 12/13-ish. I doubt that she'd just heard/read about the UL somewhere and decided to try being funny in class either - she was in floods of tears afterwards and was still getting laughed at weeks later. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Snopes has some details of cases where sharp objects actually were hidden in Halloween treats; that seems to qualify as a "yes" answer. In the site's "horrors" section, follow the "malicious mayhem" link, then the "razor blades" link. --Anonymous, 04:36 UTC, September 16, 2008.

Treatment of HARDWOODS.

I live on the Southcoast of South Africa anf have a Balau (Malaysian/Indonesian) hardwood sundeck which is showing signs of deterioration due possibly to the cyclic nature of our climate and strong sunlight and humidity.

What can I use to preserve my deck to prevent further deterioration.

Reply to Mike <email removed to prevent spamming>

15th September 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.239.197.244 (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

We use "Cuprinol" on various outdoor wood thingamajigs. Heres the South African site: [1]. Fribbler (talk) 15:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Is Sarah Palin any relation to Michael Palin

Is Sarah Palin any relation to Michael Palin... cue jokes about Monty Python and policy. -- Q Chris (talk) 15:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If they were anything other than distant relatives (by virtue of having the same surname) I'd expect the media to go into a pun-laden fluff-piece spasm. So, I doubt it. Fribbler (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that Palin is her married name. You might better check if she is related to anyone named Heath. Or maybe Heath Ledger. Edison (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(thinks) Heath Leadger ... Brokeback Mountain ... cute cowboys ... lumberjacks ... cute lumberjacks ... who like to press wild flowers and hang around in bars ... Canadian Rockies ... Alaska ... Sarah Palin ... well, obviously there's a strong connection here. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As the comic strip Get Fuzzy said last Friday, "NO-body expects the Alaskan politician." Deor (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Off-topic, but kinda funny: Michael Palin for President. -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That was the GREATEST off-topic comment I've ever read! Thanks so much for brightening my day. Saukkomies 09:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Daffy Duck

Why, when daffy duck gets out of the shower he puts a towl round himself, yet when he goes outside he only hears a shirt? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Daffy Duck does not generally wear any clothes at all. Perhaps you are thinking of Donald Duck, in which case your question is no less jejune. It's a cartoon. There's no need for an immense amount of logical consistency. --LarryMac | Talk 16:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As much as this is a question using a quote from the tv series Friends I would answer it thus: Why wouldn't he put a towel around himself? He is going to be wet from the shower and will need something to dry himself down, why not wrap a towel around himself? ny156uk (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Suspension of disbelief has some fantastic writing. To quote: "Gary Larson discussed the question with regard to his comic strip, The Far Side; he noted that readers wrote him to complain that a male mosquito referred to his "job" sucking blood when it is in fact the females that drain blood, but that the same readers accepted that the mosquitoes (in "fact") live in houses, wear clothes, and speak English." 98.169.163.20 (talk) 02:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Democratic Presidents

During the years that America has had a democratic President in the white house was it usually with a republican controlled congress or with a democratic held congress? Does anyone know the stats on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.156.167.207 (talk) 18:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Compare List of United States Congresses and List of Presidents of the United States. I will point you in the right direction, but you should do the research yourself. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with a pointer to someone else's research, if anyone knows of one. I'm moderately curious about the answer myself, but I'm not sufficiently curious to do the legwork—and I'm definitely too stubborn to reinvent the wheel if the answer were already out there. (And I would be shocked if it weren't.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(addendum) For that matter, I'd also like to know how it breaks down for all parties, not just Democrats. Be explicit about your methods of analysis, and be careful how you report results from the early Presidencies in particular—it hasn't always been just Democrats versus Republicans. Check out the 1st United States Congress, divided between the Pro-Administration Party and the Anti-Administration Party. Note that for about a quarter of a century, U.S. Presidents (from Jefferson to John Quincy Adams) came from the ranks of the Democratic–Republican Party. How would you count those? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I was skimming through the list of congresses and it seems like for much of the Clinton, Bush Sr. and Reagan administrations the congress was primarily of the other party as the Executive. The Carter administration was primarily democratic in both branches. I didn't skim back any further than that. - Lambajan 20:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

After the 82 elections (41 mid-terms) between 1836 and 1998, the party not holding the presidency controlled one chamber 16 times, and both chambers 19 times. Divided government was common after elections between 1836 and 1894 (50%), rare between 1896 and 1946 (15%), and most common between 1948 and 1998 (62%). Ware, Alan (2001) "Divided Government in the United States." Divided Government in Comparative Perspective.—eric 02:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

USMC PFT

Hi all I have a question: In wikipedia's USMC PFT article, it states that a Recruit (or Marine, after boot camp) must score at least 135 points; however, I've heard that the testee (is that a word?) must score at least 300 points. 300 sounds more likely, but I'm not sure which is the case. Anyone know? --AtTheAbyss (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's far less than 300. That's the maximum score. See here for a table of passing scores. Seems its a bit complicated. Fribbler (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

United States Drilling own oil

Joe Biden made a statement that even if the US were to open drilling it doesn't mean the oil would stay here. Since the US is not a part of OPEC, how is the pricing & sales of US oil handled?LADYOFLAKE (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC) LADYOFLAKE

The open market, just like all oil. OPEC controls prices (to an extent) by changing the amount of oil they produce. But they still sell it to whoever wants to buy it. If you want to keep the oil, you would have to have government drilling and refining. Nationalisation isn't too popular in the states. Fribbler (talk) 22:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The government could also keep the oil in the country by passing a law saying you couldn't export it. They wouldn't have to actually run the drilling themselves. Algebraist 22:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

But then the oil would still reach the same market rate, as it would compete with the US's necessary imports of black gold. In fact the whole situation is a bit of a political red herring. Drilling in say, Alaska, would only produce a small amount of extra oil which would reduce the world oil price by less than the daily whim of a stock trader. And "it would just leave the country" is also irrelevant in terms of a global commodity. The government would have to produce enough oil for self-sufficiency and regulate the price. Hmmm A Planned Economy in my Amerikaz? Fribbler (talk) 23:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Biden is correct. Left to their own devices, those companies would sell their oil on the open market. Legistlating that it could only be sold in the USA wouldn't make any difference to the price because it's still a matter of supply and demand. Legislating the prices of oil for the internal market would get the US into deep trouble with all manner of international trade agreements. How could our negotiators continue to insist that (for example) Japan and China allow their internal rice market to 'float' in order to allow the import of rice from Texas at a fair market rate? Before you know it, US exports would be getting import levies from every country on the planet. It's not so much that US oil would or would not "stay here" - it's that the price would simply go up to meet whatever the international price of oil is. Worse still - what makes you think that the oil companies would invest in drilling for the stuff and pumping it out of the ground and onto the shore at $60 a barrel - when they could invest in any of several other offshore drilling prospects outside of US waters and sell it at $100 a barrel? You can't force a company to do that - so they won't. You'd have to set up a US government owned oil company or something. This whole "drilling for US oil" thing is merely a pathetic attempt by politicians to look like they are "DOING SOMETHING"...they don't give a damn that it won't work ten years from now because they won't be in office then. SteveBaker (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the electoral process. I also heard that candidates believe in the myth of Social Security, despite overwhelming evidence that it won't be around for my generation to collect. Plasticup ^T/C 03:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

A Planned Economy in my Amerikaz?

It's more likely than you think.Avnas Ishtaroth _{drop me a line} 05:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If the Social Security trust fund exists, then Social Security will be around for a long time, with only a brief period of insolvency. Unfortuately, that period will start right around the time when I'd be retiring. If the government can't repay the money it's borrowed from the trust fund, then yes, Social Security will be non-existent. --Carnildo (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Who is this man?

Can someone tell me who the man in this video is? Thank you. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The caption on the clip itself says he's "William Veale, Retired Public Defender". Googling shows him to be a "truther" with a blog. - Nunh-huh 22:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't notice that. Thanks. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

CAFE standards widely ignored?!

In this list of "science questions" and the answers from the two US presidential candidates:

http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=42

McCain asserts that:

"I have long supported CAFE standards - the mileage requirements that automobile manufacturers' cars must meet. Some carmakers ignore these standards, pay a small financial penalty, and add it to the price of their cars. But I believe that the penalties for not following these standards must be effective enough to compel all carmakers to promote the development of fuel-efficient vehicles."

(The CAFE standards set limits for fuel economy for cars.) I've been horrified at how pathetic the CAFE targets are - and now we find that even those targets are not being met?!?! That's outrageous!

I've been trying to find out more about this - to what extent is this happening? Are all car companies doing this? How much is the fine? How long have they been doing this?

SteveBaker (talk) 23:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Linking to the article in the title to improve the accessibility to non-American Wikipedians. --antilived^{T | C | G} 00:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, here's one link: [2]. $675 mil in penalties since 1983 is really a drop in the bucket, considering the size of the US auto market. And if it's BMW and Mercedes buyers paying the penalties, that's just one more line item, right? Of more concern is that (I do believe) light trucks and minivans escape the CAFE standards altogether. And I'm completely gapping out on the name of Chrysler's hit retro-looking car of recent memory that got classified as a light truck and thereby escaped the CAFE net (edit:PT Cruiser). Also, the CAFE standards were supposed to be progressively tightened over time and Congress has granted several waivers. There's plenty of outrageous in there.

And what's even more outrageous is that all the waffling on fuel standards was largely for the benefit of US-based automakers, and now suddenly fuel is expensive and they don't know how to make small cars and they are somewhat screwed. But don't worry, a lot of car company executives got paid big money to put them in that state. Franamax (talk) 02:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense! American car companies are doing all they can! In fact, by 2020 they plan to almost catch up with Cina's 2005 requirement. Plasticup ^T/C 02:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

And here's the skinny, according to NHTSA: [3]. Turns out there are light truck CAFE standards, currently 22.2 mpg_‑US (10.6 l/100 km). That's up from the 20.7 mpg_‑US (11.4 l/100 km) from 17 years ago. For passenger cars, the standard is 27.5 mpg_‑US (8.6 l/100 km), right where it's been for the past 18 years. To me, even in terms of the little baby gallons used in the US, these are both ridiculously high consumption numbers - but I don't need a floating palace to drive around in. Looking at the penalties, they seem to be mostly paid by the Eurolux makers, and I forgot to include Porsche and Lotus. Franamax (talk) 02:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You can hardly blame the automotive companies though. They are simply responding to market forces. As individuals begin demanding more fuel efficient cars, they will begin to provide them. We can already see the trend starting. Plasticup ^T/C 03:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I largely agree - although the long-term decline of US automakers from when GM alone had >50% market share, a great part of which was due to penetration of fuel-efficient imports, hardly suggests nimble response to market forces. :( True though, the US makers are finally starting to respond to the end of the American fantasy of unlimited cheap energy. This will also help with the global warming problem - if there even is such a problem of course. The globe seems to have decided, but America is not quite sure yet ;) Franamax (talk) 04:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Digging a little more here: [4] By the structure of CAFE, there are actually disincentives to improving fleet economy, because the fine amount is determined from fleet-wide fuel economy but the fine is paid per-vehicle. So adding efficient cars can actually cost you more. Steve, you like to crunch numbers, there's lots of sigma's and dX's in there (no integrals though). Franamax (talk) 05:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, one more post, then I'll really try to shut up. :)

• McCain is talking a good populist line but making no sense. Here are the recent CAFE fines: [5]. Note how they are largely luxury and high-performance makers, with pretty low unit volumes. These makers are not the ones destroying our planet (though they're not necessarily helping) and as Plasticup notes, they simply are responding to their market, which sees a CAFE penalty as just another line item, just like the high-end BOSE stereo - no matter how high the penalty, the customer has already decided to buy a Porsche. So in general, the CAFE penalty payments aren't so much a scandal as a reflection of the segmentation of the auto market into niche makers and corporate "vehicle fleets". If Mr. McCain had to meet "Family Average House Ownership" standards, he might find his fleet a little unwieldy too. (And BMW is at the cutting-edge developing fuel-efficient high-power engines)
• Here's a list of CAFE numbers for the major makers: [6]. Fascinating comparison there on how well the US-based makers have responded to market forces - just compare the CAFE numbers to changes in market share. Oops, better not do that. No, what matters in the marketplace is profitability, just look at how much money the US makers have earned ... uh, no, let's not do that either.
• And hidden in that last link is a little gem: if you sell an E85 capable vehicle, you get credited as 15% of the overall mileage whether or not ethanol ever goes into the vehicle! Now I have no problem with not using ethanol fuel, what with it providing slim to no benefit and having the side-effect of people undergoing slight problems with starving because they can't afford food, but that makes a mockery of the whole scheme.

not certain if it's still the case, but a few years ago the E85 credits existed even if you lived in a state where E85 wasn't even available. this included the 51st state, canada; where you could get an e85 credit even though there was only one E85 station in the whole country. (last i heard they opened a second one; may be even more now.) more impressive when you realize there isn't even a corn lobby in canada, they don't stick corn syrup into their soft drinks, etc. Gzuckier (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• And finally, looking at the -new- CAFE standards, they seem to have been re-jigged. [7] And the overall result seems to be that the best strategy to escape potential penalties is to make your vehicles bigger!

Hell in a handbasket I tells ya, we're goin' to hell in a handbasket. Franamax (talk) 06:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

While we're on the topic of making a mockery of CAFE, don't forget the PT Cruiser. How many sheets of plywood can you throw in its bed? -- Coneslayer (talk) 11:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was the one I vaguely and then definitely remembered above. Turns out it had more "cargo space" than "passenger space" I guess. I would have loved to get the contract for the software that helped tweak the design just past that 50% mark - imagine the rewards for getting a vehicle into the light truck fleet! Let's see, $5 per 1/10 mpg, transferring between fleets with ~5 mpg differential, volume of 100,000 vehicles per year: $25 million net benefit? Of course, that needs to be fed into the disincentive equation I linked above - but with the positive incentive to remove the vehicle from your passenger fleet. Huh, maybe the accountant should get paid the most on this one :) Franamax (talk) 11:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and while we're on the subject, what about that PT Cruiser, huh? Sorry, I looked for a previous mention of it and missed it... time for some coffee, I think. -- Coneslayer (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

slightly OT: the chinese recently ramped up their fuel economy standards according to their set schedule; there isn't a single car assembled in North America today which can legally be sold in China. astounding, since one of the most popular makes of car in china is buick; but if you look at what's for sale there, they have much smaller engines than what's for sale here, in the same model. just another means of offshoring manufacturing, while keeping the corporate profitability; i.e., saving investment income at the expense of salary income. (not meant to be a political polemic, just an analysis of the shift of the US economy from farming to manufacturing to service to investment/"ownership") Gzuckier (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)