I agree with the rest of your post, but I do not with this point. Stupid can be defined as "lacking or marked by lack of intellectual acuity." Therefore, someone who lacks intelligence, is stupid. Stupid isn't just a buzzword with no meaning; it is indeed overused, but it still has a meaning. And there are stupid people as far as I'm concerned. I'd hazard a guess that 10% of all North American society is stupid. (I can't say for europe or other continents, as I have never visited. This value is based purely on my observations in various areas of the continent, and may have no basis in reality.) I also find the greatest concentration of stupid people to be on the east coast.
Agreed. Completely. Quite frankly, the Ontario school system is assinign. I think it makes students stupider actually...
first you say that n2o is a danger for engines. then you notice that modern engines have ECUs that compensate for the lean mixture of fuel that enters the cylinder. so, is it? or is it not dangerous?
for all i know, there are engines that have the sophistication of a toilet plunger, but manage to run reliably with extremely explosive fuels: how about... a mixture of methanol and nitromethane? yes, there are engines that use this kind of fuel. yes, they go fast as hell. no, we don't want them in lfs.
nitrous injection by itself can not be characterised dangerous or safe, since it can be used in moderation and carefuly, or in excess and haphazardly.
then you say that installing nitrous without caring for the rest of the engine will make it unreliable.
well well, here comes the clue train... last stop is you!
ANY engine tweaking is potentialy dangerous. even normal maintenance can be unreliable , like changing the sparkplugs, for instance. It might damage the turns in the sparkplug hole and make the sparkplug, later, come off.
Then you use NFS:U F&F as examples to describe something. WE DO NOT CARE. nfs is a GAME. F&F is a MOVIE. we do not care about fantasy. Your arguments fall apart the moment you bring fantasy into the discussion.
this is meaningless. and wrong. but even if the % you quoted was correct, it would still be meaningless. the percentage of O2 in pure n2o is of no significance because it is mixed with air before detonation.
n2o injection can be a perfectly safe addition for a car.
that is not an argument for the addition of n2o in LFS. n2o is not used in pro/am racing.
that's what i said. while most people call each other "you are stupid", in most occasions they mean "you are ignorant". It isn't a physical trait, like "you run slow". But you can not lack "intelligence". How do you define lack of intelligence? If someone can solve math problems yet can not perform an IQ test, can you argue that he "lacks intelligence"? In the end, it is very comforting that stupidity can not be proven and/or reckognized. If that were the case, society would have another very serious problem.
Nitrous rarely explodes if installed and used properly. The Fast and the Furious is not real life, you know. But, I still don't think we should have nitrous in LFS.
My statement about 33% O2 is perefectly valid. Are you familiar with the idea of moles of gas? Where 1 mole = 6.02*10^23 atoms or molecules? And the atomic mass of the molecule or atom is immaterial. For a given Temperature and pressure, all gases of equal molarity occupy the same volume.
So please brush up your physics and chemistry before saying I'm wrong.
And no, I didn't watch F&F TD because it's an insult to race car engineering types like me. I'm bringing those fantasy games and movies in only to illustrate how this silly and incessant preoccupation with puting N2O in LFS is just a product of a sick and lame popular culture that we are bombarded with. I certainly know that those things have no respect for Newtonian or any scientifically proven mechanics, otherwise I won't say what I say.
No, I don't know that term, I haven't taken chemistry yet. I NEVER said that nitrous can't explode ever! I just said that when installed correctly on a car, it is very unlikely that it would explode. I did NOT say you were wrong.
Now, wheelhammer, let me explain why N2O is so dangerous aboard a car. As used by illegal racers without roolcages, race fuel cells or any race safety equipment, N2O is extremly dangerous. Split fuel is much more likely with those poorly (if any) race-prepped ricers.
I'll explain why. The fire triangle is composed of oxigen, fuel and heat. Since N2O is a potent oxidizer, it adds a strong O2(oxygen) component to the equation, making disaster much more likely.
now that i calculate again n2o is 33% by volume. must've done an error. but, as i said, even if it were correct is still would be meaningless.
the atomic mass of a molecule? immaterial? what? maybe you are talking about the atomic mass being a ratio of masses therefore being a clean number, with no units? well, atomic mass does have a unit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_mass_unit
Maybe you are saying that there is no 'atomic mass', meaning that you can't have a gas of atoms and, therefore, can not weigh it? That makes sense. But the by-volume ratio of oxygen in n2o is completely irrelevant. what matters is that it contains oxygen which helps in the combustion. i do not understand what 'immaterial' means, i haven't seen it anywhere and i doubt it is of any use in this discussion. n2o won't go in LFS.
brush up my physics and chemistry, eh? tough to do, considering it is what i study.
'scientificaly proven' ?
'science' doesn't 'prove' nothing. there is no 'scientific proof'. There is mathematical proof, but that is largely unrelated. the scientific method is used for other things. not to prove.
What I'm trying to say is that atomic mass doesn't affect how much volume a certain number of gas molecules would occupy if all else was equal. I'm surprsied that you're studying science and couldn't compute this. But this is a LFS forum, not a flame war, so I'll forgive you, George.
Intelligence: "the ability to comprehend; to understand and profit from experience"
So, if you can not comprehend, understand or profit from experience, you have no intelligence. There are varying levels of intelligence, though. Those who can comprehend, understand, and profit from experience more readily have a higher intelligence. Intelligence, like you said, has nothing to do with math problems or IQ tests.
Now, those who cannot comprehend, understand or profit from experience effectively are stupid, by definition.
That doesn't make sense, Atoms are what make up molecules. Gasses have atoms, everything does.
accuracy is very important when talking about science.
you can not have a gas of atoms. you have a gas that is a number of molecules. if, for an element, an atom is the same as a molecule, then, only by coincidence, it is a gas of atoms. the distinction is philosophical but very important. a quantity of N2 gas is not Nitrogen atoms. it is nitrogen molecules (N2).
but mathematics is all about comprehension and learning from experience. intelligence is very very loosely defined as "ability to comprehend". It can not be measured or strictly defined. (set aside that there is no strict definition of "comprehension". how your mind "absorbs" "knowledge" or how it "extracts" "knowledge" from "experience" is a very very fuzzy topic. to cut a long story short, to call someone "stupid" is purely emotional mumbo jumbo. someone might not care about a subject or not know enough for it or whatever. it does not mean anything about his cognitive abilities, no matter how you can define it. you can analyse your way of thinking with only tools your thinking. like when using any tool to investigate something, you need something sharper than the object you are trying to investigate. therefore it is impossible to comprehend the way the mind works. saying someone is stupid is complete nonsense because it can not be proven. it is used solely to insult and/or for emotive purposes. it adds nothing at all to any discussion)
The only gases that naturally exist in the atomic state in nature are the "inert" gasses or the noble gases like Helium, krypton, Xenon, Noen, etc. This is due to their chemicla stability, since they have the full set of 8 valence electrons to achieve stability.
Yes, George, I'm glad that someone else besides me has discovered how silly it is to call anyone stupid. How can you define stupid when the ture nature of intellect remains so obscure?
Face it, no one is truely stupid(absoloutely never learns anything). We are all victims of our genetic heritage and most importantly , experiences(education, upbringing, social environment., etc). I'm sick of society and popular culture turning life into nothing more than a social engineering exercise for those in power.
Alright, I didn't catch that part from the other posts. Makes perfect sense to me.
I agree with you, calling someone stupid adds nothing to an argument, and no one truly is stupid. But, my point was that it is a tangible word with a real meaning, it is just used improperly. That's all I was saying
molecules consist of atoms. not very accurate, but unless you have studied quantum chemistry, it is enough for now. gases consist of molecules. this is only a little different
single-atom molecules are still molecules. not atoms. it is true that you can say that inert (which are not absolutely inert) gases are made of atoms, but that is not something a scientist would say.
the idea behind this, seemingly absurd, reasoning is this:
if you have different gases in front of you... it is not generic enough if you say:
"inert gases consist of atoms and the other gases consist of molecules".
AND
"some molecules are single atom, other are multi-atom"
it is far far simpler to say
"gases consist of molecules"
AND
"some molecules are single atom, other are multi-atom"
it is weird, but it helps. speaking in this way, however, is of value only if you are deeply interested in sciences. high-school knowledge is inaccurate and unscientific, to say the least.
other than that, i understand jamexing and i agree.
you and your damn science are killing me,and its not really on topic,is it.Idoes not matter what NOS is,and if molecules consist of atoms....its about NOS in LFS so i guess all has been said....man discuss that in some science forum,this overheated my brain,im on vacation,have some mercy
i was justed playin the demo and some guys were flyin and im not slow so i get in there cars and thay were goin 160 and i go like 143 145 and then thay would not tell me thay were like u have to buy it but i dont know if i find out i well tell u all
That is a cheat. Some of the demo racers have discovered that they are so talentless behind the wheel that they need to cheat to not come last. But then they melt their tyres and come last.
Don't join them. Know that at least 8 seconds of their lap time is due to a cheat. A cheat, no less, that Scawen will almost certainly 'fix' before the next patch (which will render it incompatible I fear, which might mean they take the opportunity to give us a goodie, but that's just me wishing).
Just point and laugh at them for being THAT bad, and wonder how on earth anyone who voluntarily downloads a driving game could be so bad at driving.
Oh, and thanks for bringing something new to this thread - it gets a bit stale from time to time and needs a little dust down. See ya!
