Craig Jungers wrote: > Scientific American tends to make better comparisons than the purely > hypothetical, I think. Besides, I spent some considerable time on tankers > (Sun, Exxon and Chevron) and I don't think that they'd be very efficient > even if the tanks were filled to the brim with people stacked up like > cordwood. An old article in SA back in the '70s showed the relative efficiency of various means of transportation. Rather than show the efficiency in terms of numbers of people, they showed the efficiency in terms of energy used per kilogram moved per kilometer traveled. In those terms, the 747 was a relatively poor means of travel (lifting 750,000lb up 31,000 feet at the start doesn't contribute to efficiency). The bicycle was number two on land (first was a unit train like those mile-long ore carriers). Number one overall was a supertanker filled to the brim with oil. The problem is of course that people are relatively light and demand a lot of room - that makes for bulk rather than efficiency. This in spite of the fact that so many people appear to be so dense. :-) Mike *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************Received on Mon Dec 11 2006 - 12:10:16 PST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:31:22 PDT