| Author |
Message |
    
Xb9er
| | Posted on Sunday, June 13, 2004 - 01:46 am: | 
|
Jon. That's funny. Not sure if you are being serious or not. See my response to Timbo for reasons why you are also a bit off base with that scenario.
Mike. |
Blake
| | Posted on Sunday, June 13, 2004 - 07:02 pm: |
|
"Who says green has to be slow."
Who says a diesel is "green"? |
Mr_grumpy
| | Posted on Sunday, June 13, 2004 - 07:15 pm: |
|
Who says ANY I/C engine is really green?
Fuel cell anyone? 
|
Mikej
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 08:49 am: |
|
 |
Charlieboy6649
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 12:51 am: |
|
I've got a lighter from spencers you plug into your butt...
SORRY, just had to put that in here! LOL! |
Jerome
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 01:59 am: |
|
I agree, Mikej.
A lot of fun with this, and not relying on dead dinosaurs... |
Firemanjim
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 03:56 am: |
|
Bykergeek,I really liked the "furniture" in Soylent Green.
So,where does all this electric power come from for the lovely electric cars---oh,that's right you just plug it in cuz electricity comes out of those nice plugs on the wall.
What happens when an electric car with all those nice big batteries gets in a nice big wreck--you have your own hazardous materials incident.And how much energy goes into producing that car and all those big ••• batteries? |
Jon
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 04:55 am: |
|
xb9r,
I'm way off base because you believe "that geologists generally believe...blah blah" and for you, that statement stands as irrefutable fact.
You're silly. And I wasn't trying to be funny either. |
Jon
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 04:59 am: |
|
Anything's edible if it's ground up fine enough. |
Mikej
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 08:21 am: |
|
Jerome,
Got a link to that bike? And Speedplays too.  |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 09:32 am: |
|
The first diesel engine was designed to run on hemp oil. When this nation was founded, farmers were required to grow hemp. Too bad we can't put aide that whole war on drugs mentality and allow people to grow a useful plant that looks like pot but is not. |
Xb9er
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 02:17 pm: |
|
Jon said:
quote:I'm way off base because you believe "that geologists generally believe...blah blah" and for you, that statement stands as irrefutable fact.
Don't misquote the article. It has nothing to do with belief. The article I quoted said "geologist's generally agree..." not "believe." Geologists and non-geologists alike are in agreement based on the factual evidence.
I thought it was important to point out your mistake, this is not a flame. You have your point of view and that's good. As a geologist myself, I try to educate people about these things when I have an opportunity, or at least present credible sources of information so that people can learn about this stuff on their own. Learning is a good thing.
Back to Buells, I think 420 would love to have an XB with "hemp oil in the frame". As long as he could get a whiff of the exhaust every now and then.
Mike. |
Jerome
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 03:14 pm: |
|
Mikej, this is the carbon racer (8.5 kg...!) from M5, Netherlands. Here's the link in english for the company : http://www.m5-ligfietsen.com/main.php?sNewLang=GB&PHPSESSID=77d2ba2fdad32a14277d 6d5460b67bf3 |
Mikej
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 03:33 pm: |
|
Interesting. A little under 19Lbs and a little under $3,000 USdollars. Unfortunately out of my price range. But I think I'll print out the page and post it at the bicycle shop. Maybe, just remotely maybe, very remotely maybe, they'll bring one in for test rides. 
Thanks for the link. |
Jon
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 03:35 pm: |
|
xb9r,
You're trying to correct my post because it said "belief" instead of "agree"? In the context of the topic do tell me what the difference is.
Geologists learn things too. As a geologist, you have come down on the side of the theories you like best. As a geologist, you are no better equipped to comment or correct anyone on this particular subject than my barber.
The factual evidence is one thing, but your "conclusions" being based upon your pre-existing beliefs (or lack) is quite another.
Don't get the two confused.
|
Jerome
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 05:56 pm: |
|
On the abiogenic versus biogenic origin of oil, a good argument comes from isotope geochemistry. Simply put, primordial carbon has an isotopic composition (the ratio between the minor carbon isotope 13C and the major carbon isotope 12C) higher than biogenic carbon, because life tends to be laisy and to spend less energy whenever possible. Metabolism capturing 12C instead of 13C needs less energy. The carbon isotopic ratio of most oil is around -25 permil and this is what you'll find in most plants having a C3 metabolism (i.e. nearly every plants except corn and grass).
There are scientific observations that seriously limit man's imagination... |
Blake
| | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 12:15 am: |
|
Someone care to explain carbon dating to me?
You know XB9R, I'm not sold on any particular "belief" as you put it, but I am certainly open to discussion. Maybe you can explain carbon dating to me. |
Jon
| | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 12:23 am: |
|
I'll handle the carbon dating thing Blake.
See when two molecules of carbon are attracted to each other, they begin to see each other casually and always in the company of other carbon molecules. The typical settings are bowling, motorcycle races, American Sport BikeN meetings, church socials, etc.
Once they get to know each other in this truly friendly, non-romantic setting and it is clear that there is so much more than merely a physical attraction, they begin to date or court each other in the normal sense of the word.
This is commonly known as "carbon dating". In most cases the carbon dating results in carbon mating, which of course occurs AFTER carbon marriage.
Your welcome in advance. |
Reepicheep
| | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 07:37 am: |
|
I'm sure there will be a more technical follow up then this, but the "nutshell" version of the carbon dating logic is as follows...
Any living thing consumes carbon as a part of it's metabolic process. There is a small amount of radioactive carbon-14. As long as you are living, you are gradually consuming this carbon-14 and adding it to tissue / branches / teeth / wings / whatever.
As soon as you die, you stop consuming this carbon-14 and stop adding it to your tissue. The decay rate of this substance is known, so by looking at the ratio of byproducts to the ratio of original carbon-14, you can make a decent guess at how long a thing's been dead.
Ways this could go badly are contaminated samples, or lousy lab work. There have been various whackos suggesting things changes in the speed of light or other weirdness, and I suppose there is no way to proove a negative (4000 years ago, something weird happened that changed the ratio of carbon-14 in all fossils or ratio of things in the air).
I seem to recall the science was verified to some degree on extrapolation of empirically measured ages (petrified fossil trees where they lined up growth rings on many different fossils to create a reasonably accurate and coherent geologic timeline), and it proved to be reasonably accurate for as far back as they could go.
Of course that's several orders of magnitude less time then it is being used to date, but I believe the math all works given most reasonable assumptions about the planet. |
Jerome
| | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 07:53 am: |
|
The C14 dating has been checked against tree rings sequences, ice-core and varve annual layering, other radiochronological methods using speleothems or corals. All this back to about 40,000 years ago. The correction is less than 1000 years over 12,000 years and increases back in time. It could be up to 7000 years at 40,000 years before present.
The main reason for the shift in the C14 clock lies in changes in the Earth magnetic field, which influences the production rate of C14 in the upper atmosphere. Other sources of modulation include variations in solar activity and in ocean circulation.
But all this has nothing to do with oil and its origin. The C14 method is not applicable for objects older than 50,000 years. This is the stable isotopes C13 and C12 which are relevant when discussing the origin of oil. |
Henrik
| | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 08:56 am: |
|
I know Court would say something like this: "The diversity and knowledge available among Buellers always amaze me."
Henrik |
Mikej
| | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 09:08 am: |
|
All current dating methods are based in some part upon assumptions. At one company I worked at there was an issue with some bearings. A new order would come in, someone would inspect them, find they were not to spec and return them. After several rounds of this someone finally noticed a bent corner on the tip of the calipers that were being used to measure the bearing i.d.
A new caliper was acquired and all of a sudden the incoming bearings were all within spec.
A measurement is only as good as the tool being used, and only to the extent of the competence of the user of that tool, and only then to the point of the accuracy of any assumptions that the measurements are based upon.
In one class I took it was proven by numerous dating methods that a certain commodity originated in one region of a continent. But if you factored in the tolerance range of all the dates you could make a minor case that the migration of the commodity could actually be reversed from the generally accepted theory. But those arguments are best kept to oneself when one is taking a test or final exam.
Life goes on. What happened happened. Maybe one day we will know how and when, but until then we just make educated guesses and follow the guidance of the best educated guessers.
YMMV. |
Road_thing
| | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 09:49 am: |
|
See? Just like arguing about evolution!
r-t |
Mikej
| | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 11:07 am: |
|
Yep.
Now go have some fun:
 |
Bomber
| | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 11:47 am: |
|
so the answer to everything is "that depends"
got it! |
Xb9er
| | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 12:24 pm: |
|
Jon
I sent you e-mail.
Jon said
quote:As a geologist, you are no better equipped to comment or correct anyone on this particular subject than my barber.
If I was your barber I would really be insulted.
Mike |
Xb9er
| | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 12:56 pm: |
|
Jon said - "You're trying to correct my post because it said "belief" instead of "agree"? In the context of the topic do tell me what the difference is."
Sorry. You did in fact misquote what I posted, but maybe I read into it more than I should have.
However, I don't think flaming  me is necessary.
Mike. |
Jon
| | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 02:21 pm: |
|
Xb9er,
You tell others that they are "way off base", are "in over your head", etc. You have a very condescending attitude in your posts that is offensive. Giving your opinion without the arrogant remarks is what you need to learn to do.
The key word in these discussions is "theory". It can get no better than that at present.
And don't send me any more e-mails, I will delete yours without even reading them.
|
Xb9er
| | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 04:36 pm: |
|
Jon (and Timbo, and anyone else who was offended):
My apologies. I never intend to offend anyone on this board, but I am not perfect so it will happen from time to time. Sorry if what I posted was taken the wrong way. I now see how I must have come across to some. But, keep in mind that it is a two-way street.
Anyway, if you find something I post to be offensive, just say so in a post or report it to the Admins. If someone does that to me, I let them know right away.
Jon, deleting my e-mails, if I were to send any to you, would be too much work. If that's what you want, just put my address in your Blocked e-mail List and you never even have to know that I sent you anything. MSN has this feature. But you can send me e-mails anytime if you want to.
I was going to respond again to what you said...
Jon said:
quote:How about oil being from the decomposed remains of the pre-flood population of earth? Like Humans as well as everything else?
...but I decided not to because this is not really the appropriate forum.
Instead, I am going to read on and find out how to improve the performance of my XB. That always puts a smile on my face.
Mike. |
Blake
| | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 01:13 am: |
|
Mike,
Very well said amigo. The big assumption with C14 dating is that the concentration of C14 has remained constant. Seems like a rather clumsy assumption to me. But what do I know. |
Jon
| | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 01:45 am: |
|
Blake are you replying to MikeJ? |
Court
| | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 04:27 am: |
|
>>>All current dating methods are based in some part upon assumptions.
Ain't that the truth! I prefer introductions by friends. Worked for me!
"The diversity and knowledge available among Buellers always amaze me."
Court |
Phillyblast
| | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 08:13 am: |
|
>>>>Ain't that the truth! I prefer introductions by friends. Worked for me!
should be followed by "remind me to tell you sometime . . ." |
Blake
| | Posted on Saturday, June 19, 2004 - 02:02 am: |
|
Jon,
Yes, MikeJ, the all wise and wonderful. |
|
