Fuel prices aren't dropping
#32
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Fuel prices aren't dropping
Marc wrote:
> Dropping? Your fuelprices are heaven compared to ours. We pay about ?1.15 a
> liter, so that's about 4.35 a gallon. I guess that's about usd4.00 a gallon.
> And you are complaining? What should we do? Start whinig??
>
> Count your blessings and be happy they you over like here in the
> Netherlands(Holland).
The Netherlands is a democracy, isn't it? Doesn't that mean that your
countrymen *want* all those taxes?
--
Mike Smith
> Dropping? Your fuelprices are heaven compared to ours. We pay about ?1.15 a
> liter, so that's about 4.35 a gallon. I guess that's about usd4.00 a gallon.
> And you are complaining? What should we do? Start whinig??
>
> Count your blessings and be happy they you over like here in the
> Netherlands(Holland).
The Netherlands is a democracy, isn't it? Doesn't that mean that your
countrymen *want* all those taxes?
--
Mike Smith
#33
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Fuel prices aren't dropping
Bob P wrote:
>
> In Northern California diesel goes for about $2.03/gallon - you think you
> got it bad.....
It's your own fault. You guys wanted all those environmental
restrictions - well now you've got 'em, and the specially formulated
fuels that they require, which are only made in CA...
--
Mike Smith
>
> In Northern California diesel goes for about $2.03/gallon - you think you
> got it bad.....
It's your own fault. You guys wanted all those environmental
restrictions - well now you've got 'em, and the specially formulated
fuels that they require, which are only made in CA...
--
Mike Smith
#34
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Fuel prices aren't dropping
rick nelson wrote:
> Bob P wrote:
>
>>Hey, I just thought of something....isn't the Imperial gallon larger than
>>the US gallon? Like 5 quarts instead of 4 quarts for ours....
>>
>>BobP
>
>
> An Imperial gallon is 1.20095 US gallons.
>
> rick
Huh? It's 1.2 gallons exactly. 5 quarts instead of 4. You must be
using an old Pentium, huh?
--
Mike Smith
> Bob P wrote:
>
>>Hey, I just thought of something....isn't the Imperial gallon larger than
>>the US gallon? Like 5 quarts instead of 4 quarts for ours....
>>
>>BobP
>
>
> An Imperial gallon is 1.20095 US gallons.
>
> rick
Huh? It's 1.2 gallons exactly. 5 quarts instead of 4. You must be
using an old Pentium, huh?
--
Mike Smith
#35
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Fuel prices aren't dropping
Markus Becker wrote:
> Bob P schrieb am Sat, 28 Jun 2003 17:57:13 GMT:
>
>
>>Can you imagine going to the Doctor and it costing $80.00 per visit?
>>(approx 48 GBP), well that's what you'd be charged here .
>
>
> Can you imageine paying 400 EUR for not even going once to a doctor?
So? I pay over $1200 a year for health insurance (employer pays the
other half) and I haven't been inside a doctor's office in over 10 years
and have never had any surgery, or even any prescriptions beyond some
basic antibiotics once or twice as a kid. That doesn't include eye
care, which I have to pay for out of pocket anyway.
But hey, still I don't really complain, and I laugh when other people
do. *It's your health*. Isn't that worth more than *any* amount of money?
--
Mike Smith
> Bob P schrieb am Sat, 28 Jun 2003 17:57:13 GMT:
>
>
>>Can you imagine going to the Doctor and it costing $80.00 per visit?
>>(approx 48 GBP), well that's what you'd be charged here .
>
>
> Can you imageine paying 400 EUR for not even going once to a doctor?
So? I pay over $1200 a year for health insurance (employer pays the
other half) and I haven't been inside a doctor's office in over 10 years
and have never had any surgery, or even any prescriptions beyond some
basic antibiotics once or twice as a kid. That doesn't include eye
care, which I have to pay for out of pocket anyway.
But hey, still I don't really complain, and I laugh when other people
do. *It's your health*. Isn't that worth more than *any* amount of money?
--
Mike Smith
#36
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Fuel prices aren't dropping
Mike Smith wrote:
>
> rick nelson wrote:
>
> > Bob P wrote:
> >
> >>Hey, I just thought of something....isn't the Imperial gallon larger than
> >>the US gallon? Like 5 quarts instead of 4 quarts for ours....
> >>
> >>BobP
> >
> >
> > An Imperial gallon is 1.20095 US gallons.
> >
> > rick
>
> Huh? It's 1.2 gallons exactly. 5 quarts instead of 4. You must be
> using an old Pentium, huh?
>
> --
> Mike Smith
Such is the legacy of a generation who learned math on a calculator.
Allow me to demonstrate. If an Imperial Gallon were 5 US quarts, that
would be 1.25 gallons *exactly*. 1 US quart is .25 of a US gallon. 5 US
quarts qould be 1.25 US gallons.
A British Imperial quart is 1.20095 US quarts and a British imperial
gallon is 1.20095 US gallons.
The source for this measurement is the New York Public Library Desk
Reference, copyright 1989 by Simon & Schuster, Inc.
I would be interested to see your source and how you did the math to
make *approximately* 1.2 gallons equal 5 quarts.
rick
>
> rick nelson wrote:
>
> > Bob P wrote:
> >
> >>Hey, I just thought of something....isn't the Imperial gallon larger than
> >>the US gallon? Like 5 quarts instead of 4 quarts for ours....
> >>
> >>BobP
> >
> >
> > An Imperial gallon is 1.20095 US gallons.
> >
> > rick
>
> Huh? It's 1.2 gallons exactly. 5 quarts instead of 4. You must be
> using an old Pentium, huh?
>
> --
> Mike Smith
Such is the legacy of a generation who learned math on a calculator.
Allow me to demonstrate. If an Imperial Gallon were 5 US quarts, that
would be 1.25 gallons *exactly*. 1 US quart is .25 of a US gallon. 5 US
quarts qould be 1.25 US gallons.
A British Imperial quart is 1.20095 US quarts and a British imperial
gallon is 1.20095 US gallons.
The source for this measurement is the New York Public Library Desk
Reference, copyright 1989 by Simon & Schuster, Inc.
I would be interested to see your source and how you did the math to
make *approximately* 1.2 gallons equal 5 quarts.
rick
#37
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Fuel prices aren't dropping
In article <vgm5knbvae0r27@news.supernews.com>,
Mike Smith <mike_UNDERSCORE_smith@acm.DOT.org> wrote:
> Bob P wrote:
> >
> > In Northern California diesel goes for about $2.03/gallon - you think you
> > got it bad.....
>
> It's your own fault. You guys wanted all those environmental
> restrictions - well now you've got 'em, and the specially formulated
> fuels that they require, which are only made in CA...
>
> --
> Mike Smith
>
No we didn't. A vociferous minority of left-wing tree-huggers wanted
them and screamed 'til they got 'em. That's how our system works, the
wheel that squeeks the loudest gets the grease. The "silent majority"
just "takes it." That's why the USA is so screwed up. Minority opinions
have learned that the hoi paloi are so complacent that they rarely get
involved in governmant at any level, so all that the minority opinion
group has to do is scream and hollar and foment a comotion, and they get
the media spotlight shined on them. The media makes it looks like this
is some groundswell grassroots issue, and suddenly, our worthless
representatives take notice, figure they would do well to ride this one
and start introducing legislation. Next thing you know, the stupid is
the law of the land. There's an old saying that goes: "People usually
get the government they deserve." The USA is that bit of wisdom in
action.
BTW, we will likely never get the great Diesel engines that you
Europeans get. Your engines (like the Alfa JDT series) rely on low
sulfur or "sweet" crude that you buy from Libya (among other places). We
don't have that and apparently there is an agreement between the US and
Europe that we won't compete with you for that oil. The result is, we
still have old fashioned Diesel engines, the ones that can run on
high-sulfur content oil. It's interesting in a way, because apparently,
GM invented most of the technologies being used in modern EuroDiesels,
but we can't use them because of this sweet crude issue. Somebody would
have to invent so cheap process to de-sulfur-ize our own oil before we
could use those newer engine technologies. OTOH, a number of European
companys such as VW, and Mercedes do sell Diesel cars in the US, but,
apparently, these motors are NOT the same ones these companies sell in
Europe.
--
George Graves
Mike Smith <mike_UNDERSCORE_smith@acm.DOT.org> wrote:
> Bob P wrote:
> >
> > In Northern California diesel goes for about $2.03/gallon - you think you
> > got it bad.....
>
> It's your own fault. You guys wanted all those environmental
> restrictions - well now you've got 'em, and the specially formulated
> fuels that they require, which are only made in CA...
>
> --
> Mike Smith
>
No we didn't. A vociferous minority of left-wing tree-huggers wanted
them and screamed 'til they got 'em. That's how our system works, the
wheel that squeeks the loudest gets the grease. The "silent majority"
just "takes it." That's why the USA is so screwed up. Minority opinions
have learned that the hoi paloi are so complacent that they rarely get
involved in governmant at any level, so all that the minority opinion
group has to do is scream and hollar and foment a comotion, and they get
the media spotlight shined on them. The media makes it looks like this
is some groundswell grassroots issue, and suddenly, our worthless
representatives take notice, figure they would do well to ride this one
and start introducing legislation. Next thing you know, the stupid is
the law of the land. There's an old saying that goes: "People usually
get the government they deserve." The USA is that bit of wisdom in
action.
BTW, we will likely never get the great Diesel engines that you
Europeans get. Your engines (like the Alfa JDT series) rely on low
sulfur or "sweet" crude that you buy from Libya (among other places). We
don't have that and apparently there is an agreement between the US and
Europe that we won't compete with you for that oil. The result is, we
still have old fashioned Diesel engines, the ones that can run on
high-sulfur content oil. It's interesting in a way, because apparently,
GM invented most of the technologies being used in modern EuroDiesels,
but we can't use them because of this sweet crude issue. Somebody would
have to invent so cheap process to de-sulfur-ize our own oil before we
could use those newer engine technologies. OTOH, a number of European
companys such as VW, and Mercedes do sell Diesel cars in the US, but,
apparently, these motors are NOT the same ones these companies sell in
Europe.
--
George Graves
#38
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Fuel prices aren't dropping
On Wednesday 09 July 2003 01:22 George Graves wrote in
<gmgraves-90FEC3.16221308072003@newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com>
<snip>
> BTW, we will likely never get the great Diesel engines that you
> Europeans get. Your engines (like the Alfa JDT series) rely on low
> sulfur or "sweet" crude that you buy from Libya (among other places). We
> don't have that and apparently there is an agreement between the US and
> Europe that we won't compete with you for that oil. The result is, we
> still have old fashioned Diesel engines, the ones that can run on
> high-sulfur content oil. It's interesting in a way, because apparently,
> GM invented most of the technologies being used in modern EuroDiesels,
> but we can't use them because of this sweet crude issue. Somebody would
> have to invent so cheap process to de-sulfur-ize our own oil before we
> could use those newer engine technologies. OTOH, a number of European
> companys such as VW, and Mercedes do sell Diesel cars in the US, but,
> apparently, these motors are NOT the same ones these companies sell in
> Europe.
references please?
AFAIK, low sulfur diesel has the same qualities (from the engine's point of
view) as the "normal" stuff. My (lease) Punto has the 1.9jtd engine and
nowhere in the manual do they speak of "use only low sulfur diesel".
Here in the Netherlands you can get both kinds of diesel, and last time I
cared to look the low-sulfur was more expensive because, supposedly, it's
better for the environment.
Also, if what you say is true, there are no scania, volvo, renault and other
(european built) trucks on your roads? Really, only Macks and Peterbilts?
Chris
--
I'm a Lisp variable -- bind me!
<gmgraves-90FEC3.16221308072003@newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com>
<snip>
> BTW, we will likely never get the great Diesel engines that you
> Europeans get. Your engines (like the Alfa JDT series) rely on low
> sulfur or "sweet" crude that you buy from Libya (among other places). We
> don't have that and apparently there is an agreement between the US and
> Europe that we won't compete with you for that oil. The result is, we
> still have old fashioned Diesel engines, the ones that can run on
> high-sulfur content oil. It's interesting in a way, because apparently,
> GM invented most of the technologies being used in modern EuroDiesels,
> but we can't use them because of this sweet crude issue. Somebody would
> have to invent so cheap process to de-sulfur-ize our own oil before we
> could use those newer engine technologies. OTOH, a number of European
> companys such as VW, and Mercedes do sell Diesel cars in the US, but,
> apparently, these motors are NOT the same ones these companies sell in
> Europe.
references please?
AFAIK, low sulfur diesel has the same qualities (from the engine's point of
view) as the "normal" stuff. My (lease) Punto has the 1.9jtd engine and
nowhere in the manual do they speak of "use only low sulfur diesel".
Here in the Netherlands you can get both kinds of diesel, and last time I
cared to look the low-sulfur was more expensive because, supposedly, it's
better for the environment.
Also, if what you say is true, there are no scania, volvo, renault and other
(european built) trucks on your roads? Really, only Macks and Peterbilts?
Chris
--
I'm a Lisp variable -- bind me!
#39
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Fuel prices aren't dropping
I think this argument is stupid, but a quick google found this link.
There's lots more to it, but for the sake of this argument, here's what it
says. Your story about the plane crashing is the "silliest thing I've heard
of." In aircraft, fuel is measured in pounds, not gallons. Metric
measurement is not the same as imperial so when they converted to metric, it
would have been in kilograms or some such . Anyway, a pump jockey is
not the guy that converts the measurement. He would have already be told
the capacity and his meter would be metric. And, after all that, the pilot
has a fuel gage.
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_unit
In the customary British system the units of dry measure are the same as
those of liquid measure. In the United States these two are not the same,
the gallon and its subdivisions are used in the measurement of liquids; the
bushel, with its subdivisions, is used in the measurement of certain dry
commodities. The U.S. gallon is divided into four liquid quarts and the U.S.
bushel into 32 dry quarts. All the units of capacity or volume mentioned
thus far are larger in the customary British system than in the U.S. system.
But the British fluid ounce is smaller than the U.S. fluid ounce, because
the British quart is divided into 40 fluid ounces whereas the U.S. quart is
divided into 32 fluid ounces.
From this we see that in the customary British system an avoirdupois ounce
of water at 62°F has a volume of one fluid ounce, because 10 pounds is
equivalent to 160 avoirdupois ounces, and 1 gallon is equivalent to 4
quarts, or 160 fluid ounces. This convenient relation does not exist in the
U.S. system because a U.S. gallon of water at 62°F weighs about 8 1/3
pounds, or 133 1/3 avoirdupois ounces, and the U.S. gallon is equivalent to
4 x 32, or 128 fluid ounces.
a.. 1 U.S. fluid ounce = 1.041 British fluid ounces
b.. 1 British fluid ounce = 0.961 U.S. fluid ounce
c.. 1 U.S. gallon = 0.833 British Imperial gallon
d.. 1 British Imperial gallon = 1.201 U.S. gallons
"john" <rsx18@mistralaero.com> wrote in message
news:3F0B8734.2080402@mistralaero.com...
> liquid ounces are the same whether US or IMP:
>
> Quart Gallon
> IMP 40 ounces 160 ounces
> US 32 ounces 128 ounces
>
> Now do the math.
> That 1.20095 value is the silliest thing I ever heard of.
>
> Free "the brain" t-shirt for the correct answer!
>
> Is this a joke or some kind of a hoax?
>
> As an interesting side note,
> -1 liquid ounce of water weights one ounce
> -1 IMP gallon of water weights 10 pounds.
> -1 gram of water is 1 ml
> -1 pound is aproxiamatly 454 grams
> -1 IMP gallon is aproxiamatly 4,54 l
>
>
> Quiz:
> Now, give the US values given the information in the beginnig of the
> message.
>
> A plane actually ran out of fuel in mid-air and almost crashed on
> landing in Canada when it went metric because the guys fueling the plane
> could not figure that out ;-(
>
> Cheers,
>
> -john
>
>
>
> rick nelson wrote:
>
> > Mike Smith wrote:
> >
> >>rick nelson wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Bob P wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Hey, I just thought of something....isn't the Imperial gallon larger
than
> >>>>the US gallon? Like 5 quarts instead of 4 quarts for ours....
> >>>>
> >>>>BobP
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> An Imperial gallon is 1.20095 US gallons.
> >>>
> >>> rick
> >>>
> >>Huh? It's 1.2 gallons exactly. 5 quarts instead of 4. You must be
> >>using an old Pentium, huh?
> >>
> >>--
> >>Mike Smith
> >>
> >
> > Such is the legacy of a generation who learned math on a calculator.
> > Allow me to demonstrate. If an Imperial Gallon were 5 US quarts, that
> > would be 1.25 gallons *exactly*. 1 US quart is .25 of a US gallon. 5 US
> > quarts qould be 1.25 US gallons.
> > A British Imperial quart is 1.20095 US quarts and a British imperial
> > gallon is 1.20095 US gallons.
> > The source for this measurement is the New York Public Library Desk
> > Reference, copyright 1989 by Simon & Schuster, Inc.
> >
> > I would be interested to see your source and how you did the math to
> > make *approximately* 1.2 gallons equal 5 quarts.
> >
> > rick
> >
>
There's lots more to it, but for the sake of this argument, here's what it
says. Your story about the plane crashing is the "silliest thing I've heard
of." In aircraft, fuel is measured in pounds, not gallons. Metric
measurement is not the same as imperial so when they converted to metric, it
would have been in kilograms or some such . Anyway, a pump jockey is
not the guy that converts the measurement. He would have already be told
the capacity and his meter would be metric. And, after all that, the pilot
has a fuel gage.
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_unit
In the customary British system the units of dry measure are the same as
those of liquid measure. In the United States these two are not the same,
the gallon and its subdivisions are used in the measurement of liquids; the
bushel, with its subdivisions, is used in the measurement of certain dry
commodities. The U.S. gallon is divided into four liquid quarts and the U.S.
bushel into 32 dry quarts. All the units of capacity or volume mentioned
thus far are larger in the customary British system than in the U.S. system.
But the British fluid ounce is smaller than the U.S. fluid ounce, because
the British quart is divided into 40 fluid ounces whereas the U.S. quart is
divided into 32 fluid ounces.
From this we see that in the customary British system an avoirdupois ounce
of water at 62°F has a volume of one fluid ounce, because 10 pounds is
equivalent to 160 avoirdupois ounces, and 1 gallon is equivalent to 4
quarts, or 160 fluid ounces. This convenient relation does not exist in the
U.S. system because a U.S. gallon of water at 62°F weighs about 8 1/3
pounds, or 133 1/3 avoirdupois ounces, and the U.S. gallon is equivalent to
4 x 32, or 128 fluid ounces.
a.. 1 U.S. fluid ounce = 1.041 British fluid ounces
b.. 1 British fluid ounce = 0.961 U.S. fluid ounce
c.. 1 U.S. gallon = 0.833 British Imperial gallon
d.. 1 British Imperial gallon = 1.201 U.S. gallons
"john" <rsx18@mistralaero.com> wrote in message
news:3F0B8734.2080402@mistralaero.com...
> liquid ounces are the same whether US or IMP:
>
> Quart Gallon
> IMP 40 ounces 160 ounces
> US 32 ounces 128 ounces
>
> Now do the math.
> That 1.20095 value is the silliest thing I ever heard of.
>
> Free "the brain" t-shirt for the correct answer!
>
> Is this a joke or some kind of a hoax?
>
> As an interesting side note,
> -1 liquid ounce of water weights one ounce
> -1 IMP gallon of water weights 10 pounds.
> -1 gram of water is 1 ml
> -1 pound is aproxiamatly 454 grams
> -1 IMP gallon is aproxiamatly 4,54 l
>
>
> Quiz:
> Now, give the US values given the information in the beginnig of the
> message.
>
> A plane actually ran out of fuel in mid-air and almost crashed on
> landing in Canada when it went metric because the guys fueling the plane
> could not figure that out ;-(
>
> Cheers,
>
> -john
>
>
>
> rick nelson wrote:
>
> > Mike Smith wrote:
> >
> >>rick nelson wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Bob P wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Hey, I just thought of something....isn't the Imperial gallon larger
than
> >>>>the US gallon? Like 5 quarts instead of 4 quarts for ours....
> >>>>
> >>>>BobP
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> An Imperial gallon is 1.20095 US gallons.
> >>>
> >>> rick
> >>>
> >>Huh? It's 1.2 gallons exactly. 5 quarts instead of 4. You must be
> >>using an old Pentium, huh?
> >>
> >>--
> >>Mike Smith
> >>
> >
> > Such is the legacy of a generation who learned math on a calculator.
> > Allow me to demonstrate. If an Imperial Gallon were 5 US quarts, that
> > would be 1.25 gallons *exactly*. 1 US quart is .25 of a US gallon. 5 US
> > quarts qould be 1.25 US gallons.
> > A British Imperial quart is 1.20095 US quarts and a British imperial
> > gallon is 1.20095 US gallons.
> > The source for this measurement is the New York Public Library Desk
> > Reference, copyright 1989 by Simon & Schuster, Inc.
> >
> > I would be interested to see your source and how you did the math to
> > make *approximately* 1.2 gallons equal 5 quarts.
> >
> > rick
> >
>
#40
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Fuel prices aren't dropping
john wrote:
>
> liquid ounces are the same whether US or IMP:
>
> Quart Gallon
> IMP 40 ounces 160 ounces
> US 32 ounces 128 ounces
>
> Now do the math.
> That 1.20095 value is the silliest thing I ever heard of.
>
> Free "the brain" t-shirt for the correct answer!
>
> Is this a joke or some kind of a hoax?
I stated my source for this measurement. Where's your source? Just
saying something doesn't make it so.
rick
>
> liquid ounces are the same whether US or IMP:
>
> Quart Gallon
> IMP 40 ounces 160 ounces
> US 32 ounces 128 ounces
>
> Now do the math.
> That 1.20095 value is the silliest thing I ever heard of.
>
> Free "the brain" t-shirt for the correct answer!
>
> Is this a joke or some kind of a hoax?
I stated my source for this measurement. Where's your source? Just
saying something doesn't make it so.
rick