What is the goal here? I'm not sure if there would be any real benefit to having a supercharger plus a turbocharger, combined with the fact that you'd have to properly match their outputs to get them to work properly.
To quote Garfield, "I resemble that remark".
I'll take odds the 11 second 1/4 mile road car over the 14 second 1/4 mile road car any day, for example Corvette ZR1 versus a Subaru WRX STI, on most race tracks.
There's much more kinetic energy spent on a turbo than a supercharger, look at the difference in rpm. The main difference is that turbo's convert some of the otherwise wasted heat in the exhaust back into compressing the air, so they are more fuel efficient.
The advantage of superchargers is they generally take up less space, and don't radiate the high amount of heat that turbochargers do, plus the reponse is near instant, but that's mostly important for high end dragsters.
This seems excessive. I mostly look back instead of relying on the mirrors when changing lanes; for one thing, it gives any nearby driver a clue that I'm about to change lanes if I'm looking back towards them. I normally use the mirror to check for other vehicles gaining on me, especially if I'm slowing down or braking, to make sure I won't be rear-ended. However most of your attention should be to focus on what's ahead of you or at your sides, not what's behind you.
This seems like it would be rare. There are two basic types of superchargers, some provide more boost at higher rpms, others produce about the same amount of boost at any rpm. The near constant boost superchargers are also called blowers, and they're usually roots type superchargers (look up 671 or 871 superchargers or blowers).
Supercharged engines aren't as fuel effcient as turbocharged engines. Since fuel milage is important for race cars (fewer pit stop), they use turbo-charged engines. Heat and lag are the main disadvantages of a turbo charger. Most high end drag racing cars use superchargers.
The advantage of two smaller turbo chargers versus a single larger turbo charger is less lag. Using different sized turbo chargers is also relatively rare these days.
Looks like DDWFTTW (directly downwind faster than the wind) has been done now. A guy name Mark made the mini-cart shown in this video. Instead of using a wind, the equivalent is done by using a treadmill running at 8.5 to 10mph in still air. When held back, and then released, the mini-cart accelerates and then maintains forward speed on the treadmill, especially on the last 3 runs which were longer. On the last run, the mini-cart runs into the far end of the treadmill. The treadmill was angled slightly upwards to eliminate gravity as a power source.
I'm not sure of the math for the spiraling path of the propeller, but in the case of a landsail or icesail, the apparent crosswind, the component of wind perpendicular to the directon of travel of a vehicle, is equal to the wind speed times sin(angle between wind and vehicle veocity direction), and this is independent of the vehicles forward speed, since it's the component perpendicular to the direction of travel. For example, with a 10 mph, and a heading 30 degrees offset from the wind, the crosswind component on the vehicle = 10 mph x sin(30) = 5 mph, regardless of the vehicles speed. This 5 mph crosswind is the power source, and the limiting factor on the vehicles top speed is related to the efficiency of the sail versus the aerodynamic and ground related drag factors. If the vehicle in this case can travel forwards faster than 11.55 mph (11.55 mph x cos(30) = 10 mph), then it's net downwind speed will be faster than the 10mph wind. The sail on the vehicle diverts the apparent headwind into a true upwind component, enough to offset the difference between the vehicles speed and the wind speed.
It's part of their agenda, which is religous instead of financial. Similar to pro and anti abortionist fighting for any abortion related bill in any state. Or the gun lobby fighting any bill in any state that would regulate or restrict anything related to guns.
Serperation of church (or any idealology that include morals) and state in the USA isn't 100%. Originally, the first amendment only referred to the federal level. States were allowed to have their own religously based laws, as long as these laws didn't conflict with federal laws. Over time, this evolved to the point that only remnants of the old laws exist. Note that adultery is still illegal althogh rarely prosecuted, in some states:
Regarding age of consent, a few female teachers in certain states received jail sentences for having sex with 17 year old boys, something that wouldn't be a crime in states where the age of consent is 17 or 16. These cases couldn't be appealed because the USA specifically allows the states to determine most of their laws, including morality based laws.
My previous comments about pedophilia were as another example of sexual orientation, clearly much more "unnatural" than homosexuality, and causing harm if the desires are acted upon. Pedofiles experience a sexual preference for children (in the USA this term is expanded by law enforcement to include any minors, apparently to stigmitize sex with minors (up to age 17) further still). Curently there is no cure: Although pedophilia has no cure at this time, various treatments are available that are aimed at reducing or preventing the expression of pedophilic behavior, again from a wiki article:
Heterosexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality, and pedophilia are all sexual orientations. Currently, most societies consider heterosexuality as normal, and pedophila as very abnormal, with bisexuality and homosexuality somewhere in between. The USA is not a libeterian country, so it's not a truly "free" society. This means that the government can choose to discourage or simply to not encourage certain behaviors, even if it's not clear that any harm is being done. Regardless if you think it's right or wrong, it's the current state of the USA and most governments.
Note that communist China, with no ties to any form of Abrahamic religion (Jew, Christian, Islam, ...), also had laws against homosexuality until the 1990's.
This would imply there's some argument that homosexuality is inherently "natural" or "normal"?
The experts state that homosexuals aren't "born that way" but develop an orientation from life experiences: The American Psychiatric Association has stated "some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person’s lifetime.
Once the orientation has set, it remains that way for most people: However, the American Psychological Association has stated "most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."
Note that some homosexuals do change their orientation, but sometimes they're accused of never having been truly homosexual in the first place, which differs from the APA finding that homosexuality is not innate.
The point is that in the USA, morality based laws are a reality. Gambling is restricted or illegal. Prostitution is illegal. Bars have to close at 2:00 am. The age of consent in California is 18, higher than most other states where it's 16 or 17.
In California, there are no laws against or in favor of gay relationships or behaviors, but currently USA society is unwilling to include gay or polygamyst relationships as marriage, since it's traditional meaning is between a man and a woman.
The Mormons and other religous groups have a right to support measures they feel are important to them. It's up to the voters to pass these measures. If you're willing to blame the Mormons for donating money, then why not blame the black voters and their "critical support" for prop 8?
Exit polls for The Associated Press found that Proposition 8 received critical support from black voters who flocked to the polls to support Barack Obama for president. Blacks voted strongly in favor of the ban, while whites narrowly opposed it and Latinos and Asians were split.
Note that filing joint income tax only applies to state tax. Since the federal government doesn't recognize same-sex marrige or domestic partnerships, gay couples have to file as single or head of household. Actually marriage tax rates are only a benefit when only one of the household members is working, otherwise it's a penalty.
Some aspects of marriage have legal equivalents. Living wills or medical directives allow a person to designate anyone to make medical decisions if that person is incapcitated. Power of attorney does the same for financial decisions. Inheritence is controlled by a conventional will.
Not true, the "No on 8" campaign included participation by Obama. The only affect attributed to Obama by the some of the news media was the high voter turnout, which included a high minority turnout (Blacks and Latinos) who are more religously oriented than most Democrats.
Why the focus on California? Florida and Arizona passes similar amendments, but didn't get as much attention. 25 other states had already passed similar amendments, and 20 other states had already passed similar laws, but not as amendments. The federal government has already passed a law (but not as an amendment). Currently the supreme court is not accepting any cases about this. My guess is that California got more attention simply because the vote was going to be close.
That would be the conservatives, mostly Republicans, who typical party stance is less government, less regulation, but pro religion (mostly Christian based), including anti-abortion. The left leaning Democrats use the term liberal almost as a badge of honor, more government, more regulation, believe in "wealth re-distribution" (higher taxes for the rich), are pro-abortion, and perceived as anti-religious. Note that Obama is considered to be a moderate as opposed to an extremist (leftist) democrat.
The less regulation experiment of the last 8 years failed, especially the legalized gambling known as "derivatives" in the stock market, so Republicans are justifiably getting hammered by the voters this time.
With 84% of the votes counted now, California voted 61% for Obama, and 52% for prop 8.
Based on a world wide scale, the USA isn't that bad. Note that communist China's anti-homosexual stance pre 1997 was not tied to Abrahamic religions, so it's not just a religous based moral issue:
HIV in the US was to a large degree initially spread by gay men, but this occurred on a huge scale over many years, probably a long time before Dugas even began to travel. From this article:
Getting back on topic, it's apparent that the USA, or at least most of the people in the USA, currently are not willing to accept gay marriage. Oh well, the lawyers will be making money from all the law suits, except currently, the Supreme Court is unwilling to accept any of these cases, and the only justices close to retirement are the liberals, so Obama's replacements for them won't change the makeup of the Supreme Court.
Note that some churches in the USA perform gay weddings, which allows a gay couple to make a commitment if they choose to do so, although because of seperation of church and state, these hold no legal meaning.
The Obama factor of high voter turnout, especially with minorities, which tend to be more religious, may be the deciding factor in prop 8 passing. This has been mentioned on several local news channels. The similar prop 2 in Florida and prop 102 in Arizona already passed. Prop 8 is currently ahead at 52% or so with about 71% of the votes, but due to which areas the votes haven't been counted yet, it's too close to call.
Although Florida's prop 2 and Arizona's prop 102 are essentially the same as California's prop 8, prop 2 and prop 102 weren't expected to be close, and didn't get much attention. So far, about 25 states have already passed similar constitutional amendments, so this year's election grows the list to 28 states. 20 other states define marriage as between a man and woman, but not as amendments to their consitutions.
You still didn't respond to my point about aids being the only disease that insurance companies can't screen for in some states. At the time, it was clearly part of what was perceived as a "gay agenda".
I don't. Many people in the USA have been indoctrinated to be paranoid of "socialism", but it's obvious that the current system needs to be fixed. It's my belief that an economic system based on greed is bound to have issues because there are a sufficient number of people unbounded by common morals or ethics willing to make a buck regardless of the consequences to others.
And it's not just economics. The lack of ethics by a few in a free society cause other issues. For example, the lack of ethics of some doctors and women deal with abortion as if it were a form of birth control, even beyond the point where a baby would survive after being removed from the mother (7 to 9 months). Instead of doing a c-section operation to deliver a viable baby, these abortions involve drilling a hole into the babies head and sucking it's brains out, then inducing labor, and it's nearly impossible to pass laws against these type of abortions. Still all of this is off topic and belongs in another thread.
Getting back on topic, both people and societies have a sense of "right" and "wrong". I don't know if it's innate, learned, or indoctrinated, but behaviors end up being considered moral, indifferent, or immoral. Considering that most in the USA consider a gay lifestyle either abnormal and/or immoral, I think the treatment has been more than fair, with benefits like domestic partnerships and civil unions.
Again, part of the concept of a free USA is for communities, counties, and states to self-govern, based on local standards, which includes morality based laws, such as "dry counties" (no sales of public alcohol) in some counties of Texas. The USA allows morality based laws, most of which are vice laws. Generally, as long as the laws apply to behaviors and not beliefs, and not in conflict with federal laws regarding those behaviors, they are legal in the USA.
One example of "gay agenda" in the USA includes the fact that aids is the only disease that health insurance companies aren't allowed to screen for in some states, because of it's association with gays. I consider that special treatment.
I think that's the bottom line here. It is a notion shared by many, if not most, societies. At least some states in the USA go beyond tolerance to including some benefits like civil unions. I'm not sure what gives a person a sense of "right" and "wrong", as it varies between people in the same society, and varies even more among societies.
Even some atheists believe that homosexuality is flawed (one issue is that it goes against the common trait of living things to pro-create), so it's a moral judgement shared by many that goes beyond right wing religious zealots. Many behaviors in life are classified as right or wrong based on moral judgement calls within a society, even by the non-religious.
This concept needs to be clarified. In the USA, the states and the counties within the states are free to establish their own set of moral standards as long as those standards are based on behaviors (actions as worded in the Thomas Jefferson letter concerning seperation of church and state (meaning the Federal legislature, not actual state governments)). Texas has "dry counties", where alcohol is not allowed to be publicly sold, simply because it's part of that communites moral standards and it's legal because it applies to a behavior. Morality based laws in Lubbock, Texas are going to greatly differ than those in San Francisco, California. Local governments in some parts of Utah essentially accept polygamy, while most of the USA doesn't.
Regardless of prop 8 or any state laws, at the federal level, same sex marrage is not recognized. For federal tax purposes, one member of a gay couple or polygamist family can file taxes as head of househould if that person is the primary support for another person in the household. The rest have to file as single (although currently this is actually a tax advantage).
Note that if both members of a married couple are working, the net effect is a tax penalty. The choices for a married couple are married filing jointly, which combines the couples income and places them into a higher tax bracket, or married filing seperately, which uses higher tax brackets than non-married filing single. The only tax benefit is for families with only one working member.
It's based on morality, independent of any specific religion. Most of the vice laws, (drugs, prostitution, gambling) are based on a moral code of conduct. The concept of an age of consent, and laws like statutory rape (a minor can't consent to sex) are examples of morality based laws.
In the USA, the government currently enforces some laws that are based on some common moral ground, even for behaviors where no harm is done. Generally behaviors fall into 3 categories: treated as illegal and possibly prosecuted, treated indifferently, or promoted via benefits.
Currently same sex couples are offered benefits such as "civil unions" or "domesitc partnerships". Prop 8 is not about eliminating the existing laws regarding civil unions. Prop 8 is about the legal meaning of marriage, which has long been defined as between one man and one woman. An example was Utah had to outlaw polygamy in order to become a state back in the 1890's. Marriage is a legal and moral concept that USA society currently chooses not to extend to include same sex or polygamist relationships. The USA legislature recently passed the defense of marriage act law to clarify this definition. State laws cannot supercede this law.
This phrase doesn't exist in the constitution. It is a interpretation of the first amendment to the USA constitution that applies to the federal government, but not to individual states. The phrase "wall of seperation between church and state" is from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists:
Note that Jefferson distinguishes between "opinions" (religious beliefs) and "actions" (behaviors) in this letter, and also refers to "legislature", meaning the USA congress. It doesn't mention anything about the laws of the individual states. Overtime, most states have eliminated religously oriented laws, such as "blue laws".
I only brought that up as an statement against being "born that way", or "it's in their nature". Regarding that, from the Wiki article about same sex marriage: American Psychiatric Association's statement which reads "some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person’s lifetime." Which gets back to my point about behavioral choices.
It all boils down to standards of morality and what society thinks the purpose and definition of marriage is. The federal govement has already defined marriage as between one man and one woman, so that is the current legal definition. What about polygamy or other extended group families that don't involve minors; a moral judgement call. What about the right of a 14 year to consent to sex, getting married, signing a contract, working full time; also a moral judgement call. What about prostitution, another moral judgement call that varies between states in the USA.