If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
baking dish, buttocks up.
Tie with butcher string around and across so that he looks like he?s crawling. Glaze, then arrange pineapples and secure with cloves. Bake uncovered in 350° oven till thermometer reaches 160°. Cajun Babies Just like crabs or crawfish, babies are boiled alive! You don?t need silverware, the hot spicy meat comes off in your hands. 6 live babies 1 lb. smoked sausage 4 lemons whole garlic 2 lb. new potatoes 4 ears corn 1 box salt crab boil Bring 3 gallons of water to a boil. Add sausage, salt, crab boil, lemons and garlic. Drop potatoes in, boil for 4 minutes. Corn is added next, boil an additional 11 minutes. Put the live babies into the boiling water and cover. Boil till meat comes off easily with a fork. Oven-Baked Baby-Back Ribs Beef ribs or pork ribs can be used in this recipe, and that is exactly what your dinner guests will assume! An excellent way to expose the uninitiated to this highly misunderstood yet succulent source of protein. 2 human baby rib racks 3 cups barbecue sauce or honey glaze (see index) Salt black pepper white pepper paprika Remove the silverskin by loosening from the edges, then stripping off. Season generously, rubbing the mixture into the baby?s flesh. Place 1 quart water in a baking pan, the meat on a wire rack. Bake uncovered in 250° oven for 1½ hours. When browned, remove and glaze, return to oven and bake 20 minutes more to form a glaze. Cut ribs into individual pieces and serve with extra sauce. Fresh Sausage If it becomes necessary to hide the fact that you are eating human babies, this is the perfect solution. But if you are still paranoid, you can substitute pork butt. 5 lb. lean chuck roast 3 lb. prime baby butt 2 tablespoons each: salt black, white and cayenne peppers celery salt garlic p |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
6 live babies
1 lb. smoked sausage 4 lemons whole garlic 2 lb. new potatoes 4 ears corn 1 box salt crab boil Bring 3 gallons of water to a boil. Add sausage, salt, crab boil, lemons and garlic. Drop potatoes in, boil for 4 minutes. Corn is added next, boil an additional 11 minutes. Put the live babies into the boiling water and cover. Boil till meat comes off easily with a fork. Oven-Baked Baby-Back Ribs Beef ribs or pork ribs can be used in this recipe, and that is exactly what your dinner guests will assume! An excellent way to expose the uninitiated to this highly misunderstood yet succulent source of protein. 2 human baby rib racks 3 cups barbecue sauce or honey glaze (see index) Salt black pepper white pepper paprika Remove the silverskin by loosening from the edges, then stripping off. Season generously, rubbing the mixture into the baby?s flesh. Place 1 quart water in a baking pan, the meat on a wire rack. Bake uncovered in 250° oven for 1½ hours. When browned, remove and glaze, return to oven and bake 20 minutes more to form a glaze. Cut ribs into individual pieces and serve with extra sauce. Fresh Sausage If it becomes necessary to hide the fact that you are eating human babies, this is the perfect solution. But if you are still paranoid, you can substitute pork butt. 5 lb. lean chuck roast 3 lb. prime baby butt 2 tablespoons each: salt black, white and cayenne peppers celery salt garlic powder parsley flakes brown sugar 1 teaspoon sage 2 onions 6 cloves garlic bunch gr |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
On 25 Dec 2004 10:23:37 -0800, "stork" >
wrote: >It seems that German car makers favor high output with small >displacement, but Americans favor getting that output through large >displacement. For example, the new GM Z06 Vette rumoured to be >launched in 05 will feature a 7 liter engine to make around 500-600hp. >But, Porsche will get similar power out of a much, much smaller >displacement engine. What are the reasons pro or con for either >approach, from an engineering perspective. > >Thanks! I think basically it's because of the continuing availability of relatively cheap gas here in the states. At this point, oil companies are lobbying extremely heavily to keep things that way. The oil companies would of course prefer that Americans continue their love affair with huge behemoths powered by large displacement engines, more money for them. During the oil crisis of 74 there was a taste of the future when gas was suddenly not available and long lines at the few gas stations still pumping ensued. I recall hearing about fights and even gunfire when peoples cars died in line due to lack of fuel and those behind simply drove around them rather than helping to push them in. There was a scramble to put out cars that were more fuel efficient. That sentiment has obviously died, at least here in the states. Corky Scott |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Corky Scott wrote:
> On 25 Dec 2004 10:23:37 -0800, "stork" > > wrote: > > >>It seems that German car makers favor high output with small >>displacement, but Americans favor getting that output through large >>displacement. For example, the new GM Z06 Vette rumoured to be >>launched in 05 will feature a 7 liter engine to make around 500-600hp. >>But, Porsche will get similar power out of a much, much smaller >>displacement engine. What are the reasons pro or con for either >>approach, from an engineering perspective. >> >>Thanks! > > > I think basically it's because of the continuing availability of > relatively cheap gas here in the states. But displacement has little effect on efficiency. In fact, I'll challenge you to find a smaller engine of similar output to the current LS-1 that achieves better fuel efficiency than the Corvette. Or even the Viper, for that matter- although it gets pretty lousy gas mileage, so do all the other exotics in the >500 horsepower category. Larger displacement = longer life for a given power output. Less component stress, less requirement for high combustion pressures, less requirement for high-octane fuel, less need for power-adders like forced induction. Basically, if the chassis will hold a larger displacement engine, its better to go with it rather than an over-stressed small engine. OTOH, if the form factor of the chassis doesn't allow a bigger displacement engine, then you have to live with the shortcomings of high power density engines. Performance wise, large displacement wins again. High torque is available instantly from any RPM, whereas smaller engines tend to have "peaky" torque curves and maximum torque at higher RPM than a larger engine of the same power output. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 17:08:29 -0600, Steve > wrote:
>But displacement has little effect on efficiency. In fact, I'll >challenge you to find a smaller engine of similar output to the current >LS-1 that achieves better fuel efficiency than the Corvette. Or even the >Viper, for that matter- although it gets pretty lousy gas mileage, so do >all the other exotics in the >500 horsepower category. Sorry, I used the wrong description. Rather than saying more fuel efficient, I should have said better fuel milage. True today's engines, of all sizes are pretty fuel efficient compared to those in 1974, but a big high powered engine developed for nose bleeding acceleration will never equal the over the road milage of a Honda Insight, as you pointed out. I'm suggesting that the reason the US continues to use relatively large displacement engines when compared to Europe, powering relatively large and heavy vehicals is most likely due to the continued availability of relatively inexpensive gas. Large engines tend to be more fuel efficient than smaller engines despite electronics technology. Aircraft engines continually run at a lower BSFC percent (when properly leaned for cruise) than any auto engine excepting diesels. And this is using magnetos rather than electronic ignition. Aircraft engines tend to be larger displacement because they direct drive the prop, which due to increasing inefficiencies with increasing prop tip speeds, generally have to spin at no more than 2,700 given a typical diameter of 74 to 78 inches. In order for such an engine to develop any power at all, it needs to have a largish displacement. Corky Scott |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Corky Scott" > wrote in message ... > On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 17:08:29 -0600, Steve > wrote: > > >But displacement has little effect on efficiency. In fact, I'll > >challenge you to find a smaller engine of similar output to the current > >LS-1 that achieves better fuel efficiency than the Corvette. Or even the > >Viper, for that matter- although it gets pretty lousy gas mileage, so do > >all the other exotics in the >500 horsepower category. > > Sorry, I used the wrong description. Rather than saying more fuel > efficient, I should have said better fuel milage. > > True today's engines, of all sizes are pretty fuel efficient compared > to those in 1974, but a big high powered engine developed for nose > bleeding acceleration will never equal the over the road milage of a > Honda Insight, as you pointed out. > > I'm suggesting that the reason the US continues to use relatively > large displacement engines when compared to Europe, powering > relatively large and heavy vehicals is most likely due to the > continued availability of relatively inexpensive gas. > Duh, anyone in the business knows this. But it's a mistake to think that the oil companies are lobbying to keep it this way. They aren't. Instead, it's the European governments that are deliberately pushing up fuel prices in Europe through taxes and such - for the simple and obvious reason that places in Europe have higher population density and as a result this makes mass-transit desirable (at least, desirable for the government) and the governments aren't stupid -they know that give a chance, the people would rather drive cars and only the fuel prices are keeping them on mass transit. Truth is though that if you live in a city that has decent mass transit, not driving from place to place is not really that bad. However the only 2 cities I've ever been in that had decent mass transit were New York and London. The rest of them, including the city I live in, labor under the delusion that a decent mass transit system can be built with busses. Ted |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
American cars | Dave | Antique cars | 6 | February 13th 05 04:27 PM |
American cars | Dave | General | 6 | February 13th 05 04:27 PM |
Rebuilding Variable Displacement Compressor? | [email protected] | Chrysler | 0 | January 18th 05 05:35 AM |
American vs German Quality | Bill 2 | Chrysler | 223 | December 14th 04 07:31 PM |
Where to find list of 1930's American Automobile Manufacturers | [email protected] | Antique cars | 4 | November 1st 03 06:44 AM |