*learn

If you're curious about superchargers, they work pretty much the same way only they're belt-driven rather than being spun by exhaust pressure.

bad ass vascularity on that lion.... even his tail needs supercharged blood delivery

@quantumushroom

>>> You think Obama failed because he wasn't liberal enough, is that correct? I saw no vision, just a clever media-protected imago who freely admitted he acted as a mirror or canvas for everyone to project their ideas onto him. Middle East failures are no surprise. He's an appeaser, his offered olive branch to the turbaned vermin was predictably shoved up his you-know-where.

No. I think he failed because he has no balls. He has done everything in half measures, trying to please everyone. If he just pushed his own agenda balls-to-the-wall, he'd be getting a lot more respect from the rest of the world, and Americans too. I think Americans value a strong President even more than one who shares their point of view. On that count, Obama is a ridiculous failure.

>>> It would do more good than fake solar companies. Special thanks to the current idiot Energy Secretary for admitting out loud what the rest of us already knew.

No, it wouldn't. A pipeline taking oil OUT of the country, including American oil couldn't possibly help. Other sources of energy that are used within the country could. In any case, neither choice has any real effect on gas prices.

>>> Where were you with this warning before the scamulus began (and yes, Bush conceived it but Obama supercharged it).

I said it several times back in '08. I may have even said it here.

>>> Back to leadership: a real leader can take it. FDR's scamulus was also a failure and revisionist history hides its lack of effectiveness, but at least FDR said of his enemies, "I welcome their hatred."

That's what I'm saying. Guy's not a leader. He's not even a speaker. He's a speech reader. He did a great job of that during the election, and hasn't done much else since.

My cards on the table: I think Obama is a horrible leader, one of the worst I've ever seen in elected office. I thought he had great vision before, and I liked his early actions in the Middle East, but he seems to lack the balls to do anything decisive. Even if he made strong decisions that I disagreed with I'd respect him more than I do. On that count, Bush was better.

>>> You think Obama failed because he wasn't liberal enough, is that correct? I saw no vision, just a clever media-protected imago who freely admitted he acted as a mirror or canvas for everyone to project their ideas onto him. Middle East failures are no surprise. He's an appeaser, his offered olive branch to the turbaned vermin was predictably shoved up his you-know-where.

What good would the Keystone Pipeline do the US? All it does is remove oil from the States to sell abroad. How could this possibly be a good thing?

>>> It would do more good than fake solar companies. Special thanks to the current idiot Energy Secretary for admitting out loud what the rest of us already knew.

Assuming "scamulous" means "stimulus", then yes, of course it failed. Nothing would have succeeded.

>>> Where were you with this warning before the scamulus began (and yes, Bush conceived it but Obama supercharged it).

And if he hadn't given a stimulus package, the Republicans would have jumped down his throat for doing nothing.

>>> Back to leadership: a real leader can take it. FDR's scamulus was also a failure and revisionist history hides its lack of effectiveness, but at least FDR said of his enemies, "I welcome their hatred."

But per your last comment, "the guy in charge at the time the fit hits the shan gets the blame", so you accept then that the entire worldwide financial crisis is Bush's fault anyway. Deal.

It's a tad more complicated than that. Bush Hatred was a daily staple of the libmedia diet and people were naturally disenchanted with negative-only libmedia reporting on the wars. I'm not sure if Bush got the lion's share of the blame for the Follies of '08...he does deserve blame for the initial scamuli, as well as acting like a liberal with a few conservative tendencies.

The seeds of the banking crisis were sowed by government ineptitude and corruption. Few people take huge risks with their own money, so when a socialist government funds a "Free Houses for Poor People Who Can't Afford Them Act" program and promises banks "risk-free" support of loans and investments to do so, people act accordingly.

Europe has European socialism to blame for its follies. Someone's gotta pay for all that free honey, and when there are more freeloaders than worker bees the hive collapses.

May the majority of bewildered voters not be so readily fooled this year, even if it means electing a stiff like Romney. Welcome back stability after His Earness and his planned chaos. And Barney Frank belongs in an orange jumpsuit for his role in the financial crises.












>> ^messenger:

My cards on the table: I think Obama is a horrible leader, one of the worst I've ever seen in elected office. I thought he had great vision before, and I liked his early actions in the Middle East, but he seems to lack the balls to do anything decisive. Even if he made strong decisions that I disagreed with I'd respect him more than I do. On that count, Bush was better.
What good would the Keystone Pipeline do the US? All it does is remove oil from the States to sell abroad. How could this possibly be a good thing?
Assuming "scamulous" means "stimulus", then yes, of course it failed. Nothing would have succeeded. And if he hadn't given a stimulus package, the Republicans would have jumped down his throat for doing nothing. But per your last comment, "the guy in charge at the time the fit hits the shan gets the blame", so you accept then that the entire worldwide financial crisis is Bush's fault anyway. Deal.

It's only the prototype, they're looking to make the next version lighter, higher revving, more powerful.

The spitfire used a 2 speed blower that the pilot switched in flight, but the equivalent Messerschmitt had a more sophisticated variable one (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daimler-Benz_DB_605 for details).

I don't know what the Mustang had, but I'd assume they've copied it here.
>> ^TheFreak:

>> ^oritteropo:
It's already supercharged according to the english version of the page.>> ^TheFreak:
Needs a turbo.


Um...needs a two stage supercharger then.
From the bore and stroke I'm not sure how they get away with calling this 1/3 scale. More like 1/5. Even then, the displacement is a fraction of the type of 12 cylinder engine they're replicating because of that whole πr^2 thing.
Nitpicking. I suppose the point is that it's cool.
Still not 1/3 scale.

>> ^oritteropo:

It's already supercharged according to the english version of the page.>> ^TheFreak:
Needs a turbo.



Um...needs a two stage supercharger then.

From the bore and stroke I'm not sure how they get away with calling this 1/3 scale. More like 1/5. Even then, the displacement is a fraction of the type of 12 cylinder engine they're replicating because of that whole πr^2 thing.

Nitpicking. I suppose the point is that it's cool.
Still not 1/3 scale.

It's already supercharged according to the english version of the page.>> ^TheFreak:

Needs a turbo.

Ruby, ruby, ruby. Quickly followed by three more badge levels.

A supercharged ruby, you are, @Boise_Lib!

Congrats.

You can beat the science drum all you want. My expirence is that Pot is no longer an option for me because of my ptsd. I was a recreational user (4 times a week) through my teens and twenties, and even a little while I was in the service, but as soon as I suffered my first incident and became aware of my disorder, pot became the last thing I wanted to touch. When I smoked it my paranoia was through the roof, to the point were I would get anxiety attacks. This made sense to me after my shrink had told me what had happened to the chemical function of my brain. I'm effectivly supercharged to the point that the most benign stimulation will send me over the edge. Either with anxiety, or prolonged enporhine disharges that usually result in flying into a rage and pumeling some sap. Weed has always acted as that little push that sends me into anxiety fits. I haven't touched the stuff in about four years, and I used to love smoking, and tripping. Now those things

Now all it needs is a supercharger and some nitrous, and we're good to go!

This is horrible, but I'd like to point out that in the flashes at the end a picture of Barricade from the Transformers movie was listed as a supercharged police cruiser.

They've got giant robots?! I give, Democracy over!

Horsepower... The Veyron has very little of that . Not as much as a Corvette, that's for sure.


Incorrect, sir.

A Veyron from the factory boasts 1001 HP at the rear wheels. The motor is essentially two 4.0 liter V8's wound together through a lot of engineering genius & electronic wizardry.

A stock Corvette ZR1 puts out 638hp at the rear wheels using a supercharged 6.2 liter LS9.
The Z06 model is rated at 505bhp with a 7.0 liter LS7.
A race-prepped C6.R Corvette is the lesser motor, putting out around 500bhp with the LS7.
A Callaway C16 tweaks the LS7 in different ways to jack the output to as much as 700hp.

In general, the smaller motor is preferred by road racers for the more usable powerband. The bigger motor is preferred by drag racers for the sheer displacement, but requires additional modifications to bump the HP, usually through turbocharging or supercharging.


It it possible that you were trying to drip sarcasm on us, but I saw nothing to indicate that this is nothing more than pure misinformation.


For those that care, the rating on the McLaren F1:
6.1 liter BMW S70/2 12 cylinder race motor capable of 627bhp.

They are all beasts of automobiles, to be certain. I'd gladly drive any or all of them, given the opportunity.



And yes, I registered as a sifter just for this!

Or whether you'd end up supercharged!

I really think you could debate whether or not he has an advantage. Not an argument of being an amputee is an advantage but whether or not the carbon feet give him an added advantage over people with their legs fully intact. (In a vague sense, like the "shark skin" swim suits that help water glide over a swimmers body.)

In his case he has no lower legs and his body dynamics for running have changed. Do the carbon feet now provide him with more "spring" than what would naturally occur? Factors like the weight .. a few pounds can make a great difference.

Really tired so shortened.. what mechanically would be equivalent to human legs... what would be deemed fair and unfair. Its a topic worth discussing like steroid abuse (not that I'm trying to link the two, just sayin itd be an interesting discussion)

Something I however do find similar..

http://www.videosift.com/video/Powerisers-Like-Supercharged-Pogo-Sticks-Strapped-to-Each-Leg-Insane-218

Video above is for Powerisers which are basically springs for your legs, the rod in the back acts like a giant Achilles tendon and calf muscle like on kangaroos allowing the users to jump great heights/distances. Stuff like what kind of mechanical advantage can be compared and yadda yadda..

Again not that being an amputee is an advantage but the equipment being used by the amputee putting him at an added advantage.

Ba.. tired, and this post longer than I thought...

>> ^xxovercastxx:
I'd have guessed turbo... I only hear the whistle of air-pressure, no supercharger whine.


Turbos dont whine at such low speeds or even when standing almost still. Even sequential turbo setups (which start at low RPMs) dont whine like that. Its definately a supercharger, since you can hear how the sound is directly dependent on the revs. Turbos are also much higher pitched. Also, turbo charged cars are far harder to drive in such maneuvers anyway. Much less predictable.
And thats surely no air-pressure (you mean air intake).