Ronnie Dobbs wrote:
> The administration has demonstrated that they are anti-science by banning
> federally-sanctioned stem-cell research,

You're ing the liberals' lie. Stem cell research is encouraged and
government grants are available to researchers. The only limitation is that
research on embryonic stem cells outside 60 well-known genetically diverse
stem cell lines cannot be Federally funded; however, the states can pass
laws allowing the states to fund such research, and researchers are welcome
to seek grants from other sources.

16 out of 31 states, none of them governed by Bush, with laws regarding
funding of stem cell research, also prohibit FUNDING of research on cells
taken from aborted fetuses and/or embryos.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

 

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> Why the hell do you think the government is still propping up the tobacco
> farmers with subsidies?

Because the states are having such a good time bleeding tobacco companies
to death.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

 

Don Stauffer wrote:
> Secondly, I think ethanol is NOT the most efficient biofuel. They
> should have looked at other fuels as well as ethanol.

Methane, anyone? <http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/22944/>

Apparently we can get it from the plants without killing the plants. In
fact, if these guys are right we can get much more from the live plants;
they estimate 62 to 236 teragrams of methane from living plants, but only
1 to 7 teragrams from plant "litter".
<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7073/abs/nature04420.html>

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

 

Steve W. wrote:
> Much better long term is MODERN design nuke power. Yes I said NUKE. No
> emissions and very safe and stable regardless of the HYPE the anti nuke
> folks cry. Oh and before folks bring them up - Chernobyl CANNOT happen
> with modern designs, and only happened there because of the poor design
> of the plant and even after all is said and done there were still fewer
> deaths than on 9/11. And Three Mile island? NO deaths, NO radiation
> leak, and in reality no real danger.

Think how smart the average person is.

Now consider that 50.0% of the population isn't even that smart.

Those are the people who will be running your nuclear reactors.

No, thanks.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

 

flobert wrote:
> On 15 Jan 2006 07:27:18 -0800, aniramca@yahoo.com wrote:
>>With the rising gas prices, we hear more and more about this type of
>>car today.
>
> Soaring? I've not seen it above $3/gal. I'd hardlycall that soaring.

Around here, in one year (Jan 2004 to Jan 2005) the price more than doubled.
That's soaring.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

 

"clifto" <clifto@clifto.com> wrote in message
news:659t93-83u.ln1@remote.clifto.com...
> Steve W. wrote:
>> Much better long term is MODERN design nuke power. Yes I said NUKE. No
>> emissions and very safe and stable regardless of the HYPE the anti nuke
>> folks cry. Oh and before folks bring them up - Chernobyl CANNOT happen
>> with modern designs, and only happened there because of the poor design
>> of the plant and even after all is said and done there were still fewer
>> deaths than on 9/11. And Three Mile island? NO deaths, NO radiation
>> leak, and in reality no real danger.
>
> Think how smart the average person is.
>
> Now consider that 50.0% of the population isn't even that smart.
>
> Those are the people who will be running your nuclear reactors.
>
> No, thanks.
>

You seem to be confusing "average" with "median."

You also assume that a person with average or median intelligence will be
running nuclear reactors. I am not a nuclear scientist, but my guess is
that that due to job requirements, nuclear reactor operators will have above
average and median intelligence.
--

Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)

 

Don Stauffer wrote:
> aniramca@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> snip
> > Today, I only see almost none of the Honda Insight (except his). I saw
> > just a number of Toyota Prius.I have never since a Ford Escape Hybrid,
> > although they bragged about it since last fall. Does Escape Hybrid
> > actually reach the consumer market? Strangely, I did see a Lexus RX
> > 400h in our rather small city the other day. I read in the news that
> > Honda Civic and Accord have now a hybrid version. The new Toyota Camry
> > hybrid is coming up. GM and Ford promise for hybrid cars (never see on
> > the street yet).
> > The bottom line, do people really care to get a higher price hybrid
> > cars? Does their reception only reflect the "environmentally
> > conscience" approach nowadays, or do people really want to buy a
> > hybrid?
>
> Not all hybrids are created equal. Toyota did it VERY well in the
> Prius. Some of the others are hybrid in name only, having very little
> effect on milage. I think that is why you see so many Priuses.

I believe the Accord Hybrid is one with a smaller effect on fuel
economy by an increase in performance. However - the Accord
Hybrid doesn't qualify for the California HOV lane exception.

There are many ways to make a hybrid powerplant. However - the
main effect on highway efficiency is the use of a tiny engine that's
inherently fuel efficient. If these dinky 1.3-1.5L engines were used
without a supplementary electric motor, they would still get
exceptional highway fuel economy. They would also take nearly
forever to get up to speed, which is where the electric motor
comes in.

The electrical motor simply provides acceptable acceleration. An
ICE is also going to be less efficient and not as powerful at low
revs. At low revs, the electric motor is probably generating more
power than the ICE. Regenerative braking recycles what normally
would be turned into heat back into the battery.

 

In article <zfOyf.12$mw5.1209@news.uswest.net>,
Don Stauffer <stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote:

> One reason manual transmissions CAN get better gas milage is that one
> can decide on shift points.

But the main reason--pretty much the ONLY reason--is that the automatic
transmission is a fluid drive, with inherent waste in the fluid transfer
mechanism.

Manual transmissions are mechanical drives, without the same wastes.

 

In article <zfOyf.12$mw5.1209@news.uswest.net>,
Don Stauffer <stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote:

> Automatics COULD be set up for more fuel
> economy, but that is not the way they are currently adjusted.

Wrong.

See the 2006 Honda Civic, where the automatic gets BETTER mileage than
the manual trans model.

 

But don't the shift points matter, too?

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-7069AB.16123016012006@nntp2.usenetserver.com...
> In article <zfOyf.12$mw5.1209@news.uswest.net>,
> Don Stauffer <stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote:
>
>> One reason manual transmissions CAN get better gas milage is that one
>> can decide on shift points.
>
> But the main reason--pretty much the ONLY reason--is that the automatic
> transmission is a fluid drive, with inherent waste in the fluid transfer
> mechanism.
>
> Manual transmissions are mechanical drives, without the same wastes.
>

 

"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
news:newscache$nhn6ti$4ew1$1@news.ipinc.net...
>
> "Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in message
> news:_vadnTe-Gsw0oFbeRVn-jg@sedona.net...
>> Inasmuch as the hybrid system is warranted for 100K miles or 8 years
>> (150K
>> and 10 years in California and a few other states) I am not worried. One
> of
>> the techies in the Yahoo Prius Technical forum bought a battery pack from
> a
>> wreck for $500 US, barely twice the core value. There is a supply of
>> batteries from totalled Prius cars and no demand.
>>
>
> But that is only now since most Priuses are still under the battery
> warranty.
> And those battery packs have a very short shelf life if they are not kept
> charged up, like any battery. 2 years after the wreck unless the wrecker
> has
> been keeping the battery on a trickle charger, it's going to be shot just
> by
> sitting there doing nothing, due to natural self-discharge.
>
> 10 years from now I think the used battery situation will be quite
> different.
> And there is another thing you and all the Prius owners should worry
> about. Toyota does not seem at all interested in addressing the points
> that the Prius critics keep bringing up about service and repair of the
> Prius post-warranty expiration. It is constantly pointed out how
> expensive
> a new replacement traction battery is. Toyota's response seems to
> be that the traction battery never fails so why worry. Toyota should
> be instead adressing these concerns and working with the aftermarket
> to bring out alternatives that are cheaper, as well as every year reducing
> the battery cost, as increasing volume production and economies of scale
> reduce the cost of those batteries to Toyota. It is also pointed out that
> the car is more expensive to repair since you can't take it to any other
> place than special Toyota dealerships that have special hybrid techs
> available. Toyota seems to be responding that the car never breaks
> down and so never needs repair. Instead they should be offering
> very low cost training to any independent mechanic that is interested
> in working on these cars in his own shop.
>

These really aren't rocket science. I am doing my own maintenance, and it is
different from conventional cars but not hard to learn. I bought the Toyota
manuals and a $200 aftermarket scanner to allow me to interface with the
hybrid and battery "ECUs", but I understand the current model uses CAN. If
Toyota's hybrids don't make it farther into the mainstream, if Toyota backs
out of their commitment to convert the bulk of their fleet to their hybrid
system, it may be a problem. Otherwise we will see independents attracted to
the market. The advent of EFI in everyday vehicles in the 80s was a bigger
challenge, as computers (gasp!) appeared in cars. Today's garages cope with
ECUs or fail. tomorrow's will cope with hybrids or fail.

> It is like Toyota's whole attitude about the Prius is that there's this
> big long warranty on it and the day after the car passes the end
> of the warranty period, it should be scrapped. I'm surprised
> that all you Prius owners aren't hammeing Toyota about reducing
> the list cost on the traction battery.
>

That is the error I hear the most. What makes you think that is the case? It
defies the nature of failure patterns because it supposes there is a timer
that will cause the battery to fail the very year the warranty expires. Will
your car be scrap when the standard warranty expires? Or will your
refrigerator only last one year? The reason those things don't happen is
that manufacturers know better than to push the envelope on warranty
periods; that is the sure way to loss where there should be profit.

>>
>> It is interesting to google 'honda transmission fail' and 'prius battery
>> fail' - the first produces nearly half a million hits, mainly dealing
>> with
>> why the transmissions are failing and what to do about them. The second
>> produces nearly 100K hits, mainly wondering if the battery will fail and
>> when that would be. Notice one post that claims to document a hybrid
> battery
>> failure - if you follow the link http://tinyurl.com/ahc2x it's clear it
>> is
>> bogus. He claims the battery put out sulfur dioxide, while there is no
>> sulfur in the NiMH hybrid battery. I suspect the 12 volt lead-acid aux
>> battery failed instead, unless the post is just a hoax. I canna change
>> the
>> laws of chemistry.
>>
>
> There is a reason for this. The Prius hasn't been out that long. And
> sophisticated
> computerized chargers that continually probe battery condition and set
> the charging optimally will add years to the life of any battery. But
> batteries
> are all time-dependent, they will fail You might get 10 years out of
> them,
> 15 tops., but that's it. And it has nothing to do with mileage.
>
> Ted
>
>
You are still thinking of car batteries. Industrial batteries have been
getting 20 year life expectancies for ages:
http://www.batterypowersystems.com/p...bsolyteIIP.htm says (in part)
"Absolyte IIP VRLA batteries range from 105 to 4800AH and have a twenty (20)
year life expectancy." Batteries are not all that sensitive to time, but
mostly to operating conditions. Put 5% too much voltage on one of those
puppies and it will last less than a week, as I too well know :-(
Treat it right and it will be at rated capacity when I retire.

Toyota only puts their money where their mouth is for 10 years, but a lot of
cars don't last that long, either. Every car dies of something. My first new
car was a 1970 Mercury Capri that went to salvage at the tender age of 8
years when it needed yet another u-joint... they were integral with the
driveshaft, which was then as expensive as the market value of the car. My
second new car was a 1984 Dodge that made it to 6 years or so before it
needed a timing chain change. Step one: remove engine so the cover could be
removed. More than the car was worth. My last Volvo wasn't worth a new
carburetor at 25 years. Anyway, I have every expectation that most Prius
will end their days with the original battery somewhere around the 15 year
mark, which is what Toyota estimates the battery life is.

I can't understand the fixation on the battery. If Toyota is confident
enough to pick up the bill for the first eight or ten years, what is the
likelihood there will be a drastic change in the curve at 11 or 12 or 13
years? What is the chance this major automaker with a reputation for
reliability has gone nuts and made a car that will bite them hard on
standard warranty on a major item? I think the odds are in my favor. If you
want to hold off, I understand.

Mike

 

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-8AC644.06513816012006@nntp2.usenetserver.com...
> In article <_vadnTe-Gsw0oFbeRVn-jg@sedona.net>,
> "Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote:
>
>> If you drive a car newer than 1980, you have a lot of sophisticated and
>> critical electronics in it, too. ECU, transmission controller, ABS
>> controller, probably power window and power lock controllers (depending
>> on
>> make/model/year). Any of those is as vulnerable as the hybrid system
>> computers in the Prius and many are about as expensive...
>
> Don't care aboqut the power windows and power locks failing on me on the
> highway.
>
> On the other hand, the computer is MUCH more integral to the simple
> starting and driving away of the parallel hybrid (Toyota system) than I
> like.
>
Have you had a lot of trouble with your ECU or transmission controller
failing you on the road? The controllers in the Toyota hybrid system are
very much like those devices: crucial, low power and very reliable. You may
be hearing of ECU replacements in the pre-2004 Prius cars; those are
replaced because the software could not be updated otherwise and was too
touchy about the speed with which the combustion engine fired up. As the
engine aged it would sometimes get too slow about firing and would set the
hybrid warning. The present model just takes flash upgrades.

Worry more about power handling devices. There have been a smattering of
inverter failures, which have the same effect as the igniter failing in
Hondas - call a tow truck. It isn't nearly as common as igniter failures,
but will be more expensive when out of warranty... probably $300 or more on
the used market. Let's not get started on main relays!

What I am trying to say is that the reliability and longevity issues are
somewhat different from those in conventional vehicles but are no more
worrisome. The car you are driving today, if it was made since 1996, is
every bit as complex and high tech as hybrids are. As a practical matter,
this Prius has been so far the most reliable car I've had in my 35 years of
driving... by a large margin.

Mike

 

"John S." <hjsjms@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1137434337.949954.195030@g14g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>
> High Tech Misfit wrote:
>> John S. wrote:
>>
>> > The Toyota hybrid is much more expensive than a
>> > Corolla and the Corolla has far more room for people and luggage.
>>
>> Having ridden in my folks' '04 Corolla and my uncle's '05 Prius, I have
>> to
>> disagree. The Prius has a bit more interior room than the Corolla, and a
>> quite a bit more cargo capacity since it is a hatchback. You must be
>> thinking of the old Prius which was smaller than the current one.
>
> No, the current one.
>
Not according to the measurements; http://tinyurl.com/axydj

The 2005 Corolla has 0.2 inch more headroom, 0.5 inch more rear shoulder
room and 0.9 inch more front hip room.

The 2005 Prius has 0.6 inch more front legroom, 3.2 inches more rear
legroom, 2.2 inches more front shoulder room, and 5.4 inches more rear hip
room. Altogether the Prius has nearly 6 cubic feet more passenger space.

The pre-2004 Prius was nearly identical in measurements to the Corolla.

Mike

 

"Ronnie Dobbs" <watNOSPAMuzi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:N-6dnXrg-uUhcFbeRVn-qw@centurytel.net...
> Steve W. wrote:
> >> The administration has demonstrated that they are anti-science by
> > banning
> >> federally-sanctioned stem-cell research, and by demanding religion
> > being
> >> taught as science (ID). And the Bush family has been a Big Oil
family
> > for
> >> decades, look up Arbusto Energy for an example.
> >> --
> >>
> >
> > You mean the ban on research like the Korean who was touted as being
the
> > leader in the field of stem cell research, that turned out to be
FAKE,
> >
> >
http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/tech...3485211780.htm
> >
http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/opin...1314954040.htm
> > http://english.epochtimes.com/news/5-12-30/36347.html
> >
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...portaltop.html
> >
> > Yup we need to spend more money on that.....
> > Oh and could you show me in the constitution where it says I am
required
> > to pay for it?
>
> Where in the Constitution does it give you the right to post on
USENET?
> That's right, the Constitution doesn't touch on things that weren't
invented
> when it was written.
>
You may want to READ it. Notice that little item about freedom of
speech? It means I have the RIGHT to say whatever I wish the same as you
do.


> And I don't like spending money on war, but I have no choice.

Sure you do Move out of the US. The constitution does provide for
spending for the defense of the country and it's interests.


>
> > or the cancer researcher who also faked his data,
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4617372.stm
> >
> > Oh maybe you mean the ID folks who tried to get it instituted as a
> > course, even when Bush stated he thought it was wrong. Even though
it is
> > NOT against the constitution to teach it.
>
> It is unconstitutional to teach religion as science.

NOPE, nothing about teaching religion is unconstitutional. It states
that Establishment of a state religion is wrong. That means that the
government cannot say "ALL persons in the U.S. MUST be Catholic" Or
"that all persons MUST be Wicca" However there is NOTHING about religion
being taught in shools as being wrong, regardless what the ACLU wants to
believe.

>
> > As for big oil. SO WHAT at least the man has REAL experience in
business
> > and how it actually works, as opposed to the former president who
NEVER
> > HELD A JOB in his life but just sucked on the governments as a
> > public servant.
>
>
> Yeah, every company Dumbya ran went bankrupt or lost money. That's
really
> something to brag about.
>



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

 

"John A. Weeks III" <john@johnweeks.com> wrote in
news:john-6A3198.11433316012006@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net:

> In article <TMWdneurvdmkUlbenZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@sedona.net>,
> "Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote:
>
>> Sadly, wind and solar fall into the category of the least desirable
>> of all forms of generation, "intermittent generation." Utility
>> electricity as we know it is entirely on-demand; we don't have to
>> schedule when we turn lights on and off. In contrast, public grids
>> are a remarkably delicate real-time balance of generation, loss and
>> load. Some "peaking" generation must always be held in reserve to
>> maintain the balance, while "base" generation like coal, nuclear and
>> hydro provide the cheaper electricity to meet the expected minimum
>> demand. As used today, solar and wind do not fit into this at all.
>> If base generation is like public transportation and peaking
>> generation is like private cars, intermittent generation is like
>> hitchhiking. Maybe it will get you where you are going, but you can't
>> count on it. Worse, factors that affect one wind or solar site will
>> likely affect all the neighboring sites in the same way at about the
>> same time.
>
> Your entire argument would be correct if there was no way to store
> electricity. That is what makes Ethanol so attractive--you use this
> otherwise wasted intermittent and off-peak power to produce Ethanol,
> then use the Ethanol when needed. It isn't that Ethanol is cheaper
> or more efficient than gasoline, but rather, it allows us to make
> use of cheaper night time and seasonal hydro power that might
> otherwise go unused.
>
> There are other ways of storing electric power. For example, at the
> Coolie Dam in Washington, they use unsubscribed power to pump water
> from the dam up into a former river channel that is at a higher
> elevation. When they need extra power, they use the force of water
> falling from this lake to run generators. Plans for similar such
> electric storage operations have been planned along the Mississippi
> River.
>
> -john-
>

Here in Hurricane country,we often pump DOWN lakes and reservoirs to have
capacity for incoming storms.Other areas have water shortages year round.

And there's no way to convert electricity into ethanol.
Maybe hydrogen,but not ethanol or other hydrocarbon fuels.

And for hydrogen conversion,the efficiencies are terrible.

You want reliable electric power,nuclear is the way to go.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net