I was dissapointed with the article about the greatest machine ever designed. While I agree with most of the facts there is one glaring error. The engine of the bicycle is not a zero emissions engine; unless someone has figured out how to ride a bike without breathing. You know, oxygen in, carbon dioxide out. Then there is the issue of all the pollution generated in the whole process of growing food. I’m not saying there is any other more efficient means of transportation; I doubt that there is. It’s just that when the article says a person riding on a bike produces zero carbon dioxide, it just ain’t so, and that makes the whole article loose credibility.
Any living organism that breathes oxygen emits carbon dioxide. Typing this comment on the computer, I am emitting CO2 plus using all the resources needed to generate the energy to operate the computer. The obvious point of the article is efficiency. A person on a bike emits many times less CO2 than someone driving a car the same distance. Taking the point further, perhaps someone on a bike emits less pollutants than someone surfing on their computer for the same amount of time.
Michael H: Maybe the article was overhyped. But the point remains, it is a zero-emission engine. The person riding a bicycle is not a part of the bicycle, but a separate machine.
Keith, A bike without a rider is just as much of a zero emissions engine as a car is without an engine. Neither one is going to get very far but they are zero emissions devices. What’s the point of that. I actually thought the original article was a very nice statement about biking, but would have been even more powerful with correct data instead of hype. A person in terms of carbon emissions generated to produce power gets the equivalent of around 1200 miles per gallon on a bike and about 300 to 400 miles oer gallon walking; depending on how you calculate it. A person on a bicycle is, as the article stated, the most effecient machine ever devised.
Comments
I was dissapointed with the article about the greatest machine ever designed. While I agree with most of the facts there is one glaring error. The engine of the bicycle is not a zero emissions engine; unless someone has figured out how to ride a bike without breathing. You know, oxygen in, carbon dioxide out. Then there is the issue of all the pollution generated in the whole process of growing food. I’m not saying there is any other more efficient means of transportation; I doubt that there is. It’s just that when the article says a person riding on a bike produces zero carbon dioxide, it just ain’t so, and that makes the whole article loose credibility.
Any living organism that breathes oxygen emits carbon dioxide. Typing this comment on the computer, I am emitting CO2 plus using all the resources needed to generate the energy to operate the computer. The obvious point of the article is efficiency. A person on a bike emits many times less CO2 than someone driving a car the same distance. Taking the point further, perhaps someone on a bike emits less pollutants than someone surfing on their computer for the same amount of time.
Michael H: Maybe the article was overhyped. But the point remains, it is a zero-emission engine. The person riding a bicycle is not a part of the bicycle, but a separate machine.
Keith, A bike without a rider is just as much of a zero emissions engine as a car is without an engine. Neither one is going to get very far but they are zero emissions devices. What’s the point of that. I actually thought the original article was a very nice statement about biking, but would have been even more powerful with correct data instead of hype. A person in terms of carbon emissions generated to produce power gets the equivalent of around 1200 miles per gallon on a bike and about 300 to 400 miles oer gallon walking; depending on how you calculate it. A person on a bicycle is, as the article stated, the most effecient machine ever devised.