Air conditioning

Our Ford Windstar has two settings for air conditioning, regular and "max." We had always assumed that "max" meant the compressor would work harder, hence using more gas, so we rarely used it. That is, until one day another Ford owner pointed out to us that "max" simply means that the vehicle re-circulates the interior air, rather than bringing in new air from outside. This is documented in the manual, but it isn't exactly intuitive; why couldn't they simply say what it does?

My truck has this feature, but it has a separate button: you can run any of the air conditioner settings with or without the air recirculating. And I was able to infer the meaning of the button without the assistance of a friend. It does make me wonder, though: if the air recirculates, wouldn't you be breathing the same stale air? How long would it be before that became a problem? I found a site demonstrating that adults inhale 8-10 liters of air per minute. (That's about 8 1/2 to 10 1/2 quarts, or a little over two gallons. Darn metric system.) That's not very much, but it could become a lot quickly: after just 10 minutes, it would be 20 gallons, and after an hour, 60. If there are two people in the car, make it 120. Surely that would have to be a significant portion of the air in a regular car (not a van or suv), so that your oxygen intake would be getting pretty thin.

Obviously, that doesn't happen. Not only doesn't it happen, there probably isn't the remotest chance of its happening, or the car companies would be risking major lawsuits (and hence wouldn't allow that option). I suppose, therefore, that cars must leak a lot of air. And that makes me wonder just how much air gets introduced into a vehicle in a given period of time, but I have no idea on that count.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Country Music

I noticed a long time ago that there isn't much difference between the sound of country music and rock music nowadays. If I'm surfing my radio and I come to a station playing jazz, classical, or rap, I recognize it right away; but if I come to a country or rock station, I often can't tell which it is until the song is half over. Country songs often have screaming guitars that would fit equally well in a hard rock song, and only a minority have a recognizably country instrument such as a fiddle or a banjo. All the same, no one could listen to a country music station for more than a few minutes without realizing that it is definitely not a rock station. What are the differences? There are some stylistic differences. Country songs are more likely to have a boogey beat or certain western-sounding bass lines. They also tend to be more formulaic: if you can't predict how a country song ends, you probably don't listen to much country music. But those things aren'
Read more

Science and Philosophy, Part I: Hume and Popper

I've been listening to a lecture series on philosophy recently, and, even though I haven't gotten past the Greeks yet, it has reminded me of a number of issues that trouble me about science. I want to take the opportunity to express my concerns here. Along the way, I will probably oversimplify philosophy a great deal -- not on purpose, but rather because I have only a simplistic understanding of it. I welcome responses to clear up my misconceptions. One of my issues with science is the famous idea of Karl Popper that it can never establish positive claims, only falsify wrong ones. The history of this goes back to David Hume, the 18th century Scottish sceptic. He shook up the philosophical world by claiming that science could never prove anything through induction -- that is, drawing conclusions about physical laws based on observations. The classic illustration is the sun's rising. Even though the sun has risen every day for our whole lives, and for countless human l
Read more

Three stages in liberal denial of media bias

I was 15 years old in 1984, and an avid follower of politics and the news. When Reagan was making his decision whether to run for re-election, I was opposed to it. It wasn't that I didn't like Reagan; I loved him. But I was convinced that he wouldn't stand a chance in the election, and I didn't want to see him lose. Of course, he went on to win one of the most lopsided elections in history. Why was I so wrong? Because I had been watching network news (the only kind, back then) and the coverage was overwhelmingly negative. Since that time, I have watched with disbelief as liberals have criticized Fox News as unbalanced, culminating in the amazing spectacle of the president himself declaring that Fox is not a legitimate source of journalism. Meanwhile, these same liberals refuse to acknowledge that ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, etc. (ad nauseum) have any bias of their own. What makes this all the more incredible is that a number of studies have been produced demonstr
Read more