Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more
Can't Access your Account?
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
Quote: Quote:By my calculations...
QE2 - 34.2 miles per gallon per person. Somebody even more bored at work can correct me if they wish.
This has turned into a QE2/Titanic thread!Actually the more important figure is person-miles per gallon. (Sorry, my mistake - the mpg per person per gallon figure is meaningless.. and therefore ideal for this thread! )
But the 34.2 figure is correct for PMPG.
OK. let us assume a generous 12mpg for a large 4x4 on the school run with two passengers (mum + brat). We get a comparable figure of 24 PMPG.
So the QE2, for all its luxury, is a "greener" way to travel than a 4x4. We can, and no doubt will, argue about whether the correct parameters have been used. Should we include crew in the QE2 calculation - after all they are only there to serve the passengers. What if Mum has more than one brat in the 4x4.
So much to think about here..............
As for QE2 -v- Titanic (which is larger), we have already had that discussion. No clear cut answer. QE2 is longer, Titanic is heavier.
............................ who's snoring at the back there?
But then... would the ship not do less MPGs with more people in it adding to the weight? (just being picky ).
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
Quote: **** is an acronym.
that really is useless on account of not being true.
Indeed so. It's from the Old English word 'scitan'.
I didn't want to say that in case it was useful.
Don't argue with CB - when you're talking s**t, nobody knows more
Who invented the word "Hindsight" it's of no use to anyone.
Quote: would the ship not do less MPGs with more people in it adding to the weight
As the ship itself weighs about 48,000 tons I'm guessing a few people extra would not reduce fuel consumption hugely.
If you assume an average of 75 kilos per person, 3648 passengers and crew would weigh 273.6 tons........ a mere 0.57% of the ship's weight.
the myrmidons are no bottle ale houses
The plural of fish is not always fish.
Seeing as we are on about Ships . . .
The word POSH is also an accronym.
In the days when you used to sail by steamship to Australia / the Far East etc, if you had plenty of wedge, you would book your state rooms POSH. This meant on the outward leg of ther journey, you stayed on the cooler Port side of the ship (ie away from the sun for the hot part of the day), and on the home leg it was the Starboard side - Port Out - Starboard Home.
The year 532BC was not know as 532BC to those who lived in 532BC.
Cats can be left or right pawed.
Here's some useless info:
I have just spent 5 minutes trying to work out if my foot really is the same size as the distance from elbow to wrist (read first page of thread). Hubby walked in (we both work from home) to find me sitting at computer with my leg up and foot on arm to measure!!!!
"Working hard?" and he walks out.
now to think of other useless info to share.
Quote: The word POSH is also an accronym.
No, thats another one that isn't.
Quote: No, thats another one that isn't
Yup - I call this sort of thing a backfill - someone invents an explanation for a word that sounds slightly plausible, and eveyone assumes it to be true. Like, for instance, Fornication Under Consent of King - load of rubbish!
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
You must be a member to leave a comment
Get the latest photography news straight from ePHOTOzine in your email every month and win prizes!
01/09/2014 - 30/09/2014
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
View September's Photo Month Calendar