Xref: kermit uk.rec.gardening:183396

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:09:00 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

IMM wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Eh? Last report was september 2003?

http://www.acpropulsion.com/ACP_Bib_results.pdf
"AC PROPULSION INC. Dedicated to Creating Electric Vehicles that People
Want to Drive
www.acpropulsion.com
September 29, 2003
San Francisco
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
tzero Earns Highest Grade at 2003 Michelin Challenge Bibendum...."


Pity the background does people's eyes in, which makes it difficult to read.
I'll give one a miss.




How can a plain white PDF file do your eyes in?

a)Print it out
b) roll printout into a tube
c) poke the idiot hard in the eye with it.
--
Martin

Franz Heymann wrote:


As clear as daylight. The reason for the reduced area of Thermomax is that
it has twice the efficiency as the flat plate. *Not* that it has "twice the
efficiency per square foot".


Its because he didn't go t uni. He's very sensitive about it.

He sort of graps the concept that a square foot of one is better than a
square foot of another, but detailed explanatins of teh correct words to
use just pass hum by.

He's a humpty dumpty. Words mean what HE wants them to mean.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman wrote:

snip

Mmmm. I checked out some model plane electric motors. About a kilowatt
and 3/4 pound, so about 2bhp per pound. 200 brake horsepower for 100lb
weight anyone? and no gearbox or clutch? No wonder that electric Lithium
car at AC propulsion is gettin 0-60 times in under 4 seconds, and a 300
mile range...

They beat the fuel cell cars on everything at the tests.

www.acpropulsion.com



There are two problems with elecric motor vehicles that would have to be
overcome to make them viable.

First problem would be that they really need some kind of backup power. If
a conventional fuel vehicle (or indeed any fuel that can be quickly
recharged) runs out of or low on fuel then it is a quick and simple job to
put more in the tank. A battery powered vehicle would need some considerable
time recharging - either at the side of the road or at a recharge
point/"fuel" station. Forget to put the thing on charge last night? You're
stuck in the morning. Power cut? Ditto. The occasional long journey?
Forget it.

Second problem is one of recharge logistics.

Battery vehicles would represent a considerable advantage in towns and
cities. Quiet and pollution free at the point of use.

However, the majority of people living within large cities and towns do not
have designated parking spaces, and most of it is on-street parking.
Pavements would have to be dug up and publically accessible chargeing points
installed to be able to recharge such a vehicle, along with a suitable
payment mechanism. I can't see the LA taking too kindly to me stringing a
cable across the pavement to my house! Even in areas with controlled parking
zones there is no right to be able to park outside one's house, so the price
of someone parking in "my" space, abandoning a car or even leaving a skip
would be complete immobility for me. Visitors? Hmmm.

I'd have a battery powered vehicle at a sensible price and with decent
performance/range like a shot. But until these problems are solved, then
it's not viable.

--
Richard Sampson

email me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 23:04:37 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

It is the loses at generation and transmission
losses. This can be reduced by having smaller
local power stations, the UK had them, using
natural gas, using CHP to heat the local district.

The indirect transmision losses involved in
shovelling large numbers of loads of small
amounts of fuel to thousands of small power
stations all over the country are vastly greater
than the transmission losses in power cables.

Not if the fuel is in natural gas pipelines.

I thought that the natural gas accessible to the UK was not all that much
any more.

The North sea is still full of it and we also import the stuff from Russia.

The North Sea *was* full of it. It's another finite resource, much of
which is being squandered to heat greenhouses, so that they can grow
things that grow in the open in southern Europe.
--
Martin

"martin" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:09:00 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

IMM wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Eh? Last report was september 2003?

http://www.acpropulsion.com/ACP_Bib_results.pdf
"AC PROPULSION INC. Dedicated to Creating Electric Vehicles that People
Want to Drive
www.acpropulsion.com
September 29, 2003
San Francisco
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
tzero Earns Highest Grade at 2003 Michelin Challenge Bibendum...."


Pity the background does people's eyes in, which makes it difficult to
read.
I'll give one a miss.




How can a plain white PDF file do your eyes in?

a)Print it out
b) roll printout into a tube
c) poke the idiot hard in the eye with it.

I like it, like it.

Franz

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Rod Hewitt" wrote in message
.. .
"IMM" wrote in
:

A car has no insulation, as they produce so much waste heat the
engines can provide enough even in the coldest conditions. Adding
insulation, bonded to the cars sheet metal around the cabin, would
improve matters. The drive motors and batteries produce heat, so this
must be available for use.

And also add to the cost and weight...

Insulation should not add that much weight. Cost? Mass production will
bring that down.

I doubt that any heat would be available from motors if they are fitted
into the wheel hubs.

If they are. Most electric cars have one motor.

There may be problems supplying enough electrical power for the
demisters,
seat heaters (oops, well I have a Saab), and other things (maybe needing
a
heater for the screen/headlamp wash and other currently
unnecessary/rarely
fitted devices).

Cars are full of unnecessary crap which add cost and weight affecting fuel
consumption, such as rev counters.

Please have a feeling for quantitative matters. Your car is capable of
producing more than 10^5 watts and you are mithering about an instrument
which uses at most 5 watts to produce data which is very valuable for
enabling you to use the engine effectively?

Why does anyone need to know how much
the engine is revving in a normal road car?

Beats me. I know when it is
revving, I hear and feel it.

I find it a very useful device for helping me to decide on when to change
gear. It is more quantitarive than just "having a feel for it"

If it is revved too much the management system
cuts it out. An electric window on the drivers side is unnecessary too,
as
are electric sunroofs, which are a British fascination. The French don't
want to know them.

At last we are in agreement about something

Why isn't the a/c an absorption system using waste engine heat, instead of
taking power off the crank, reducing mpg?

Franz

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Franz Heymann wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Martin Brown wrote:



Solar power works reasonably at latitudes below about 45 degrees, but
it
is quite frankly a complete non-starter at latitudes 55N and above.
Unless you count biomass conversion in forests for indirect fuel
generation.



Agreed. Horses for courses.

However tide power is not impossible either. Not an easy one tho.

If only we could get fusion power working...


Fusion power is going to turn out to be a great deal filthier than
fission
power.



I don't think so. The fisson products would all be relatively short
lived isoptopes, and teh main product is helieum. Non radioactve helieum

Its only the vast amounts of radiation intereacting with the shielding
that would cause some radioactive compounds to be generated.


Fission power is the cleanest and least polluting energy source ever
produced on earth.



Yes, I tend to agree with you.


The number of deaths per kilowatt hour which occur in the extraction
and
processing of fossil fuels is a lot higher than the corresponding
number
for the extraction of uranium



I would not be surprised.


The pollution of the atmosphere by fossil fuel stations is vastly
worse
than
the pollution caused by nuclear power stations.

That is certainly true.

If all power stations were nuclear around the world the waste would pile
up
and be a huge problem in the future. Silly idea and should be forgotten.

It is obvious that you have never given a moments intelligent thought to
this question. You are just following the flock. The waste from a nuclear
power station is in fact a great deal easier to dispose of safely than the
waste from a fossil fuel plant. The trouble lies entirely in the fact that
the shepherds who persistently lead the sheep astray on this matter have not
even the faintest understanding of the issues involved in comparing methods
of disposing of waste from power stations.

Franz

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Franz Heymann wrote:

As clear as daylight. The reason for the reduced area of Thermomax is
that
it has twice the efficiency as the flat plate. *Not* that it has "twice
the
efficiency per square foot".


Its because he didn't go t uni.

I did. Thankfully not one of those snotty uni ones, full of half-breds.




---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/2004

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

The pollution of the atmosphere by fossil
fuel stations is vastly worse than
the pollution caused by nuclear power stations.

That is certainly true.

If all power stations were nuclear around
the world the waste would pile up
and be a huge problem in the future. Silly
idea and should be forgotten.

It is obvious that you have never given a
moments intelligent thought to
this question. You are just following the flock.

My God, he is the only with insight now.

The waste from a nuclear
power station is in fact a great deal easier
to dispose of safely than the
waste from a fossil fuel plant.

But is isn't!! It is dumped at the bottom of the ocean in casks that might
last 100 years, then they will slowly leak their toxic contents into the
ocean and into the food chain. This is a very sill idea. As people in the
20th century cursed the Victorian legacy of piled up dangerous slag heaps
and other filth, future generations will think the same of us.

The waste can be dumped down deep disused mines and then the seams concreted
up. In 1000 years time some one will probably tunnel into it. Of course
they will make a record, which will be lost. There are 4, 5 or 6 (no one
quite knows) underground store of TNT under Belgium fields. No one quite
knows where they are. These were the largest non-nuclear bombs ever made.
The British would tunnel under the German trenches, fill with TNT and
detonate, killing 10,000 men in one explosion from one bomb. The disused
bombs were not used because the British trenches had moved forwards over
them. One of these bombs went off by accident in 1955. Luckily no one was
killed. It is a matter of time before the others explode. Records of
where the bombs are? Some, but not all.

If every powerstatio in the world was nuclear, where would all the waste go?
Privately owned stations would cheaply dump the waste (illegal dumping of
chemicals in all countries is common), insead of down expensive deep mines
and sealing up with concrete. It is the human error aspect that is the
flaw. When it goes wrong the effects last for 100s of years after.

Also, cases of leukaemia are far greater around nuclear facilities. Just
co-incidence the nuclear people say. ********!!!

The trouble lies entirely in the fact that
the shepherds who persistently lead
the sheep astray on this matter have not
even the faintest understanding of the
issues involved in comparing methods
of disposing of waste from power stations.

They have a lot of common sense, that is clear. Dependency on fossil fuel
power can be vastly reduced by use of insulation, passive solar, superior
town planning eliminating cars, CHP, more efficient engines, etc, etc.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/2004

In article ,
IMM wrote:
Its because he didn't go t uni.

I did. Thankfully not one of those snotty uni ones, full of half-breds.

But is so proud of it he's ashamed to name it...

--
*If a turtle doesn't have a shell, is he homeless or naked?

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

In message , Franz Heymann
writes

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Franz Heymann wrote:

Fusion power is going to turn out to be a great deal filthier than
fission
power.

I don't think so. The fisson products would all be relatively short
lived isoptopes, and teh main product is helieum. Non radioactve helieum

Its only the vast amounts of radiation intereacting with the shielding
that would cause some radioactive compounds to be generated.

No. In the reactions which are presently considered, there will be a lot of
tritium around. Tritium is a gas and it has a long half life. It scares
the pants off me.

Tritium isn't all that bad. Its half life of about 12 years is short
compared to millenia for fission waste. Tritium is a beta emitter with
18keV electron decay and there is quite a market in tritiated plastics
for permanent glow in the dark (and still some requirement for H-bomb
initiators). Emergency lighting in some applications is based on it.

Fission power is the cleanest and least polluting energy source ever
produced on earth.

Yes, I tend to agree with you.

You have to get the whole life cycle right though. And they still
haven't an adequate solution for long term storage of high level waste.

Regards,
--
Martin Brown

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 01:38:55 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Franz Heymann wrote:


As clear as daylight. The reason for the reduced area of Thermomax is that
it has twice the efficiency as the flat plate. *Not* that it has "twice the
efficiency per square foot".


Its because he didn't go t uni. He's very sensitive about it.

Perhaps, he didn't go to school. These aren't concepts taught at
university, they used to be taught to 15 year olds at school in the
nineteen fifties


He sort of graps the concept that a square foot of one is better than a
square foot of another, but detailed explanatins of teh correct words to
use just pass hum by.

He's a humpty dumpty. Words mean what HE wants them to mean.

--
Martin

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 07:47:37 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"martin" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:09:00 +0000, The Natural Philosopher

How can a plain white PDF file do your eyes in?

a)Print it out
b) roll printout into a tube
c) poke the idiot hard in the eye with it.

I like it, like it.

It seems that at least one poster here, failed to print it out :-)
--
Martin

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 07:55:12 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:


"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Rod Hewitt" wrote in message
.. .
"IMM" wrote in
:

A car has no insulation, as they produce so much waste heat the
engines can provide enough even in the coldest conditions. Adding
insulation, bonded to the cars sheet metal around the cabin, would
improve matters. The drive motors and batteries produce heat, so this
must be available for use.

And also add to the cost and weight...

Insulation should not add that much weight. Cost? Mass production will
bring that down.

I doubt that any heat would be available from motors if they are fitted
into the wheel hubs.

If they are. Most electric cars have one motor.

There may be problems supplying enough electrical power for the
demisters,
seat heaters (oops, well I have a Saab), and other things (maybe needing
a
heater for the screen/headlamp wash and other currently
unnecessary/rarely
fitted devices).

Cars are full of unnecessary crap which add cost and weight affecting fuel
consumption, such as rev counters.

Please have a feeling for quantitative matters. Your car is capable of
producing more than 10^5 watts and you are mithering about an instrument
which uses at most 5 watts to produce data which is very valuable for
enabling you to use the engine effectively?

Perhaps you can explain
a) why Nissan puts a rev.counter in a Nissan Micra *Automatic*? :-)
b) Why it's electrostatic powder clutch has died after 20,00 miles
c) what an electrostatic powder clutch is and why.


Why does anyone need to know how much
the engine is revving in a normal road car?

Beats me. I know when it is
revving, I hear and feel it.

I find it a very useful device for helping me to decide on when to change
gear. It is more quantitarive than just "having a feel for it"

Real drivers do it by ear :-)


If it is revved too much the management system
cuts it out. An electric window on the drivers side is unnecessary too,
as
are electric sunroofs, which are a British fascination. The French don't
want to know them.

At last we are in agreement about something

Why isn't the a/c an absorption system using waste engine heat, instead of
taking power off the crank, reducing mpg?

Nissan aircos don't seem to increase fuel consumption noticeably.
--
Martin

"martin" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 01:38:55 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Franz Heymann wrote:


As clear as daylight. The reason for the reduced area of Thermomax is
that
it has twice the efficiency as the flat plate. *Not* that it has
"twice the
efficiency per square foot".


Its because he didn't go t uni. He's very sensitive about it.

Perhaps, he didn't go to school. These aren't concepts taught at
university, they used to be taught to 15 year olds at school in the
nineteen fifties

What concepts would you be on about, oh know-it-all one?

He sort of graps the concept that a square foot of one is better than a
square foot of another, but detailed explanatins of teh correct words to
use just pass hum by.

You are a man of limited intelligence.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/2004