On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 19:37:02 +0000, Cynic <cynic_999@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

> On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 13:16:58 +0000, Derek Potter <me@privacy.net>
> wrote:
> 
> Sorry about the mis-spelling of your name.  I should indeed have taken
> more care, especially as it was written on the screen I was typing on.

Seems to be a major problem with you, not quoting correctly.

> > > statement that if you double the
> > > *rate of consumption* you burn 4 times as much fuel over a given time.
> 
> > > That statement is quite obviously incorrect.
> 
> > It is quite obviously CORRECT since the only way you can double the
> > rate of consumption is by going twice as fast. Which is what we are
> > talking about: an accelerating run. We are not talking about waving a
> > magic wand and changing the car. In fact, the fact that you are
> > burning fuel *implies* acceleration. There is no possible way anyone
> > here, except you, could be talking about burning fuel while keeping
> > the same speed.
> 
> "Rate of consumption" can only mean one thing. The amount of fuel
> used per unit time.  Double the time and you double the amount of fuel
> used.  Double the rate of consumption and you also double the amount
> used per unit time.  I gather that you are talking about both the rate
> doubling and the time doubling, which will indeed give 4 times the
> amount used, but that is not what you have stated.

You gather incorrectly then. Read what I said. Don't twist it, don't
misquote it, don't add your own words. My statement was about one
thing. Your ambiguous use of the word "consumption". The only time I
used the phrase "rate of consumption" was to resolve your sloppy
language - the other possible meaning being "total consumption".