How do you measure sea level?

[MoSurveyor]

"We" have been "slowly moving away from oil as a fuel" for a few decades, albeit very slowly.
If you're patient and manage to live long enough, you might notice.

I've already lived through most of those decades you're talking about. I doubt I'll make it through the next four decades to see anything I'll notice. We've not reduced consumption enough in the last five decades to even account for growth, let alone make an actual dent in usage.


http://chartsbin.com/view/oc2

 

[MoSurveyor]

Sorry, I was thinking of a calculation I ran for making one's own gasoline at a
60 % conversion efficiency.
So 4$ at say $.12 per KWH is 33 KWH.
A gallon of gasoline contains about 33 KWH of energy.
What is the Tesla's rated mpg (equivalent)?

I honestly don't know - but I can look it up. I got my numbers from an old Car & Driver (I think, could have been Road & Track) article on the Tesla Roadster but dropped the range down to 250 (instead of 300) to avoid conflict over that issue. I'll look it up ...


"Tesla Roadster: 135 mpg, 250 mile range, 0 to 60 in 4 seconds (updated)"

Read more: http://www.leftlanenews.com/tesla-r...range-0-to-60-in-4-seconds.html#ixzz2qyzfrerU


Tesla Model S is 88/90 city/hwy or 38 kWh per 100 miles.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=32557

Commuting 50 miles a day (25 miles each way) yields 418 kWh / month.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Precision is dictated mostly by the instrumentation. We are extremely precise in our measurements these days. Accuracy is the relation of the measurement to reality. Many things can effect accuracy and everything is done that can be done to make the positions more accurate, which is also quite a bit nowadays. If anything, you're the one that doesn't know the difference as your statement here clearly shows. Precision isn't hard to attain at all, it's accuracy that's a bitch.

You act like you've read this stuff in a book somewhere instead of living with it in your professional life for 25 years as I have. If you're really a plumber I suggest you stick to that. Your ignorance of even simple concepts of measurement is unbelievable.

The perceived precision of the instrumentation is giving an illusion of accuracy. The GPS system in the area of Japan which moved during the famous earthquake has to be used day to day.

This means that the numbers it comes out with have to get you back to the same bit of ground that they old position gave despite the fact that that bit of ground has actually moved in relation to the earth's center (where ever that notional point is).

This means that the choice of calibration from the nearest radio telescope has had to have been made.

The alternative choice of calibration of the GPS system from the earth's center would be useless for day to day use, as it would make any bit of ground seem to wander about, and require the definition of the earth's center to be done at the outset of making the system. Even if you think that the present system of satellites is capable of locating the theoretical point of the earth's center to the mm the start up of the GPS system would not have been. I think for all purposes the choice of the makers of GPS would be to calibrate it to the nearest radio telescope. They were being sensible when they did that.

 

[MoSurveyor]

The perceived precision of the instrumentation is giving an illusion of accuracy. The GPS system in the area of Japan which moved during the famous earthquake has to be used day to day.

Only to those who have no clue as to what precision and accuracy are and what each entails to reduce error.

I'm sure those positions in Japan have been re-observed since the earthquake. If they were continuously operating stations then the movement as it happened would have been observed and they would require several months (at least) of measurement to regain their continual reference status. In the US I believe a continuous reference station takes a year to establish, now. It used to be two years, IIRC.

This means that the numbers it comes out with have to get you back to the same bit of ground that they old position gave despite the fact that that bit of ground has actually moved in relation to the earth's center (where ever that notional point is).

This means that the choice of calibration from the nearest radio telescope has had to have been made.

I have no clue what you're trying to say here.

The alternative choice of calibration of the GPS system from the earth's center would be useless for day to day use, as it would make any bit of ground seem to wander about, and require the definition of the earth's center to be done at the outset of making the system.

That's why we use NAD83 in the US instead of WGS84 - but we can calculate WGS84 coordinates if we have the observation date. I'm betting Europe has it's own, local reference for it's plate, too.

Even if you think that the present system of satellites is capable of locating the theoretical point of the earth's center to the mm the start up of the GPS system would not have been. I think for all purposes the choice of the makers of GPS would be to calibrate it to the nearest radio telescope. They were being sensible when they did that.

It's the reference ellipsoid that's important. We've already been through this.

The GPS system doesn't rely on radio telescopes except as satellite trackers for post-processing ephemerides.

 

[Earthling]

I've already lived through most of those decades you're talking about.

So has my son.

I doubt I'll make it through the next four decades to see anything I'll notice.

Ill health, or disinterest?

We've not reduced consumption enough in the last five decades to even account for growth, let alone make an actual dent in usage.

Maybe you haven't noticed the increase in population.
I was somewhere around the 2,312,694,460th person to be born on planet Earth.

Historical Oil Consumption by Region, 1965 to Present

 

[Earthling]

I honestly don't know - but I can look it up. I got my numbers from an old Car & Driver (I think, could have been Road & Track) article on the Tesla Roadster but dropped the range down to 250 (instead of 300) to avoid conflict over that issue. I'll look it up ...


"Tesla Roadster: 135 mpg, 250 mile range, 0 to 60 in 4 seconds (updated)"

Read more: Tesla Roadster: 135 mpg, 250 mile range, 0 to 60 in 4 seconds (updated) | New and Used Car Reviews, Research & Automotive-Industry News & LeftLaneNews


Tesla Model S is 88/90 city/hwy or 38 kWh per 100 miles.

Compare Side-by-Side

Commuting 50 miles a day (25 miles each way) yields 418 kWh / month.

The ideal family car, and a snip at only $101,500 for the basic model.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The ideal family car, and a snip at only $101,500 for the basic model.

Actually, the MSRP is at $69,900 for the base model. It's the first 1,000 units that were Signature edition, and went for nearly $100k. After that, three battery capacity options and two motor options.

The Roadster was not a family car, and had a base price arounf $109k. They only stopped producing it because Lotus stopped selling the bodies to them.

 

[MoSurveyor]

So has my son.

He's in his mid to upper 50's? Then you're either older than I thought or were pretty damn young when you started having children.

Ill health, or disinterest?

Just plain old age, however you want to label it. But your statement is telling all by itself.

The odds of living to my mid-/upper-90s are pretty slim. No, I don't expect to beat those kind of odds - I'm more of a realist than that. My grandfather lived that long though so I guess you never know.

Maybe you haven't noticed the increase in population.
I was somewhere around the 2,312,694,460th person to be born on planet Earth.

I guess your age is telling on you so I'll post it again and explain it this time ...

"We've not reduced consumption enough in the last five decades to even account for growth."

Yes, my friend, growth as in increase of population. If the reduction of consumption had even kept pace with growth then we would be using the same now as we were using then. But the fact is, we're using more now than ever. So much for "reduced consumption".