fidget wrote: 
..you got that..well ,,almost right.

In Danish, a bog-handel is a bookseller, fag-litteratur means 'non-fiction', removal men are called flytte-folk and a bag-rude is a rear-window.

Standard disclaimer here 

Some big freakin' animals.

 duchamp wrote: 
that's roosist!

 duchamp wrote: 
Ewww, TMI! 

 RASPUTIN wrote: 
I've done quite a bit of ''farm work'' but never castrated a rooster.  

 JrzyTmata wrote: 
That's gonna leave a mark.

 hippiechick wrote: 
so he's compensating with a cape on?
I'll be here all week. tip your waitstaff.

 hippiechick wrote: 
castrated pissed off...
I'm just sayin'.

A capon is a castrated rooster

 islander wrote: 
Some time ago, some one here told me batteries was not the future,due to all sorts of things,well !
Nono is the future !  ..we are heavy into researching..nano..nano !
 

 beamends wrote:  Cool..coming on strong here as well,cars with particle filter are classified as eco- friendly.

 Xeric wrote: 
Other things being roughly equal, a heavier car will require more fuel to travel a given distance - therefore less efficient. It's why as technology has improved and we have improved over the years, our mileage has stayed roughly the same - our cars used to weigh about half as much. A lot of it is safety gear - air bags, better crumple zones, side intrusion beams... all to protect us from the other heavy cars on the road.

If you took 1/3 of the weight out of your current ride, your mileage would improve.

unless we breach some new paradigm, we're not going to get a lot better at conversion technology from liquid to kinetic.

yeesh, I'm starting to sound like Servo, so I'm off to breakfast.

 HazzeSwede wrote: 
Diesel cars out sell petrol in the UK, and have done for some years (c.2002).

 islander wrote: 
Make's me wonder why we don't have more diesel cars in use.
 

 islander wrote: 


Just trying to get this clear in my own head: yes, our penchant for gigantic vehicles (guilty, Your Honor) is a huge contributing factor in *how much* energy we use. But when we're talking about efficiency, that's not so much a matter of gallons burned as of what percentage of those gallons goes to actually pushing us down the road, as opposed to (quite literally) warming the air we blast through. (That is, of course—we lose most of the potential energy in our gallon of gasoline or diesel or french fry oil as waste heat.)

 HazzeSwede wrote: 
Diesel has a higher energy content (about 140K BTU/Gallon), so it makes sens that diesels go farther on a gallon than gas (more energy there to move you along). It's also easier to refine and less volatile than gasoline. 

Lots of energy stored in a small easy to transfer medium is what our transportation system is built around, and a big part of why electrics and other alternatives are slow to develop. It takes a long time to move the equivalent amount of energy using electrons or other forms of transfer/storage.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
I might be a bit to picky here, but we really do extract the fuel's potential pretty well. Modern systems with fuel management spark timing, variable valving, etc.  get nearly perfect stoichiometric burns every time pass of the cylinder.  The inefficiency comes from other imperfections of the transfer from chemical energy to mechanical, and mostly the fact that our fat butts want heavy power leather seats in our 4000 lb battle wagons.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:  Seams like diesel is the fuel to use.
 

VW Diesel Passat BlueMotion Hits Almost 75 MPG

 

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
That was my point - I think