Hybrid cars
#121
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 18:51:59 GMT, Grumpy AuContraire
<Grumpster@GrumpyvilleNOT.com> wrote:
>Do the math.
>
>Initial Cost/Financing/Insurance/Maintenance vs. fuel efficiency.
>
>I'll betcha that the hybrid presents little advantage when looking at
>the big picture...
Factor in resale value and depreciation.
Of course, a lot of that is guesswork - a good example is what SUV
owners thought their vehicles would be worth but didn't anticipate $3
gas.
<Grumpster@GrumpyvilleNOT.com> wrote:
>Do the math.
>
>Initial Cost/Financing/Insurance/Maintenance vs. fuel efficiency.
>
>I'll betcha that the hybrid presents little advantage when looking at
>the big picture...
Factor in resale value and depreciation.
Of course, a lot of that is guesswork - a good example is what SUV
owners thought their vehicles would be worth but didn't anticipate $3
gas.
#122
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Electricity - was Re: Hybrid cars
Bagasse: This discussion seems to be going more into energy sources.
This is sorta off topic from hybrids.
Sugar refiners burn the sugar cane after extracting the sugar. Heat
from the burning cane fiber is used to evaporate water from the sugary
juice and to generate electricity.
Barbados has run into stiff competition in producing sugar.
Agriculturists (Jaques Albart-Thenet) there are reverting to earlier
varieties of sugar cane which produce more fiber and less sugar.
Varieties which also grow off season.
The sugar can be used to produce ethanol. The big thing is the energy
from the fiber.
Tourism is a huge economic engine on Barbados. The cane fields hold the
soil together and give the islands that lush tropical look. Presently
about 25% of Barbados is planted in cane. Under the plan, this will
fall to 18%. The target is to replace 20% of the oil used to generate
electricity. The target price is $0.08 per kilowatt-hour.
This is sorta off topic from hybrids.
Sugar refiners burn the sugar cane after extracting the sugar. Heat
from the burning cane fiber is used to evaporate water from the sugary
juice and to generate electricity.
Barbados has run into stiff competition in producing sugar.
Agriculturists (Jaques Albart-Thenet) there are reverting to earlier
varieties of sugar cane which produce more fiber and less sugar.
Varieties which also grow off season.
The sugar can be used to produce ethanol. The big thing is the energy
from the fiber.
Tourism is a huge economic engine on Barbados. The cane fields hold the
soil together and give the islands that lush tropical look. Presently
about 25% of Barbados is planted in cane. Under the plan, this will
fall to 18%. The target is to replace 20% of the oil used to generate
electricity. The target price is $0.08 per kilowatt-hour.
#123
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
"clifto" <clifto@clifto.com> wrote in message
news:f4au93-bqu.ln1@remote.clifto.com...
> Ronnie Dobbs wrote:
>> Art wrote:
>>> "clifto" <clifto@clifto.com> wrote...
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately the federally approved stem cell lines are all
>>> contaminated.
>
> Then those who insist on using embryonic/fetal stem cells shall have to
> find private funding.
>
So why did Bush go on tv and promise to federally fund useless research.
Kind of like his war in Iraq.
#124
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:18:44 -0500, "Steve W." <Dugdug56@what.com>
wrote:
>
>"Ronnie Dobbs" <watNOSPAMuzi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:Wt-dnRonJJFQzVbenZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@centurytel.net...
>> Rob wrote:
>> > "Ronnie Dobbs" <watNOSPAMuzi@yahoo.com> wrote in message > But can
>we
>> > trust USDA studies? With the anti-science bent of the current
>> >> administration, and Big Oil's hands in the administration's
>pockets,
>> >> there is a real chance the studies are totally bunk.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Why are you ing political hog wash about this administration.
>This
>> > administration has done many things to try to lower are demand for
>> > foreign oil. They offered a 2000 dollar tax credit for people that
>buy
>> > Hybrids cars, I know because I almost got one and the dealer told
>this
>> > to me many times. Plus offered ground breaking help from the
>Government
>> > for people to use Biofuels. I have a friend that collects hamburger
>> > grease to burn in his diesel VW and told me about it plus you may
>still
>> > be able to read about it at the biofuel sites. This is only the
>ones I
>> > know of first hand and am sure there's more so don't
>political
>> > trash like that. What's this about being anti-science bent and big
>oil
>> > in there pockets? You sound like another Michael Moore nut. Get
>real.
>>
>> 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?
>
>or the cancer researcher who also faked his data,
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4617372.stm
So, if we recognize the fraud committed by Kellogg Brown and Root and
Custer Battles, I guess we can stop paying for national defense.
http://www.democracynow.org/article..../03/01/1521200
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11763
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/...whistleblower/
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/outrage?bid=13&pid=2319
There is a way to deal with individuals and companies which defraud
the government - send them to prison.
>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.
If by it you mean Intelligent Design, a federal court just held that
it was unconstitutional to teach it in a public school. Their finding
was based on a Supreme Court decision that teaching creationism (same
, different textbook) was unconstitutional.
>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.
If you think W ever "held a real job" you have to be kidding. Having
someone give you an oil company and then someone buy it back after you
run it into the ground is not holding a real job.
wrote:
>
>"Ronnie Dobbs" <watNOSPAMuzi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:Wt-dnRonJJFQzVbenZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@centurytel.net...
>> Rob wrote:
>> > "Ronnie Dobbs" <watNOSPAMuzi@yahoo.com> wrote in message > But can
>we
>> > trust USDA studies? With the anti-science bent of the current
>> >> administration, and Big Oil's hands in the administration's
>pockets,
>> >> there is a real chance the studies are totally bunk.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Why are you ing political hog wash about this administration.
>This
>> > administration has done many things to try to lower are demand for
>> > foreign oil. They offered a 2000 dollar tax credit for people that
>buy
>> > Hybrids cars, I know because I almost got one and the dealer told
>this
>> > to me many times. Plus offered ground breaking help from the
>Government
>> > for people to use Biofuels. I have a friend that collects hamburger
>> > grease to burn in his diesel VW and told me about it plus you may
>still
>> > be able to read about it at the biofuel sites. This is only the
>ones I
>> > know of first hand and am sure there's more so don't
>political
>> > trash like that. What's this about being anti-science bent and big
>oil
>> > in there pockets? You sound like another Michael Moore nut. Get
>real.
>>
>> 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?
>
>or the cancer researcher who also faked his data,
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4617372.stm
So, if we recognize the fraud committed by Kellogg Brown and Root and
Custer Battles, I guess we can stop paying for national defense.
http://www.democracynow.org/article..../03/01/1521200
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11763
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/...whistleblower/
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/outrage?bid=13&pid=2319
There is a way to deal with individuals and companies which defraud
the government - send them to prison.
>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.
If by it you mean Intelligent Design, a federal court just held that
it was unconstitutional to teach it in a public school. Their finding
was based on a Supreme Court decision that teaching creationism (same
, different textbook) was unconstitutional.
>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.
If you think W ever "held a real job" you have to be kidding. Having
someone give you an oil company and then someone buy it back after you
run it into the ground is not holding a real job.
#125
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:10:02 -0600, "Rob" <rdbdriver@blomand.net>
wrote:
> If your talking about Halliburton, the VP sold all that stock long
>before he ran for VP. I say a political talk show about this subject and
>they basically said there is no company other than Halliburton that could
>take on a job as big as Irag, and this is why they get the contracts not
>because of the VP.
The reason for this is that, instead of breaking up the job into a
large number of small contracts, they lump it into one HUGE, no-bid
contract which (surprise) only one company is big enough to handle.
The Government used to have an army of accountants who managed the all
the small contracts. They did it well and it was a LOT cheaper than
what we are doing now. in fact, they did it too well and the
corporations couldn't make much profit. So the Republicans made sure
that the accountants were fired and now the big corporations suck the
money right out of the treasury.
> I'm a big out doors person, spend every chance I can hiking, fishing,
>boating, camping and ATV riding so nobody gets upset at seeing trash or
>pollution as I do, but at the same time I understand that many policies were
>putting a strangle hold on some of are companies to compete with the world
>market. If you close down are companies because of some minor things and
>just move them to another country that has no environmental policies at all
>then what's the bigger problem you created for the environment plus all the
>jobs you lost. That's why I like this administration they look for right
>balance.
And manufacturing has stopped moving to unregulated countries?
wrote:
> If your talking about Halliburton, the VP sold all that stock long
>before he ran for VP. I say a political talk show about this subject and
>they basically said there is no company other than Halliburton that could
>take on a job as big as Irag, and this is why they get the contracts not
>because of the VP.
The reason for this is that, instead of breaking up the job into a
large number of small contracts, they lump it into one HUGE, no-bid
contract which (surprise) only one company is big enough to handle.
The Government used to have an army of accountants who managed the all
the small contracts. They did it well and it was a LOT cheaper than
what we are doing now. in fact, they did it too well and the
corporations couldn't make much profit. So the Republicans made sure
that the accountants were fired and now the big corporations suck the
money right out of the treasury.
> I'm a big out doors person, spend every chance I can hiking, fishing,
>boating, camping and ATV riding so nobody gets upset at seeing trash or
>pollution as I do, but at the same time I understand that many policies were
>putting a strangle hold on some of are companies to compete with the world
>market. If you close down are companies because of some minor things and
>just move them to another country that has no environmental policies at all
>then what's the bigger problem you created for the environment plus all the
>jobs you lost. That's why I like this administration they look for right
>balance.
And manufacturing has stopped moving to unregulated countries?
#126
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:st6rs1poctb1r82gpvip0k3kavnes5kh8j@4ax.com...
So the Republicans made sure
> that the accountants were fired and now the big corporations suck the
> money right out of the treasury.
What on earth are you talking about.......The government has been turning
many wastful government jobs over to the private sector for many years now,
for the basic reason it will be much more efficient.
>
>
>> I'm a big out doors person, spend every chance I can hiking,
>> fishing,
>>boating, camping and ATV riding so nobody gets upset at seeing trash or
>>pollution as I do, but at the same time I understand that many policies
>>were
>>putting a strangle hold on some of are companies to compete with the world
>>market. If you close down are companies because of some minor things and
>>just move them to another country that has no environmental policies at
>>all
>>then what's the bigger problem you created for the environment plus all
>>the
>>jobs you lost. That's why I like this administration they look for right
>>balance.
>
> And manufacturing has stopped moving to unregulated countries?
>
No they haven't, but are government should make it more profitable
enviroment to stay here if it can, at the same time find the right balance
for the enviroment. >
#127
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:st6rs1poctb1r82gpvip0k3kavnes5kh8j@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:10:02 -0600, "Rob" <rdbdriver@blomand.net>
> wrote:
>
>> If your talking about Halliburton, the VP sold all that stock long
>>before he ran for VP. I say a political talk show about this subject and
>>they basically said there is no company other than Halliburton that could
>>take on a job as big as Irag, and this is why they get the contracts not
>>because of the VP.
>
> The reason for this is that, instead of breaking up the job into a
> large number of small contracts, they lump it into one HUGE, no-bid
> contract which (surprise) only one company is big enough to handle.
> The Government used to have an army of accountants who managed the all
> the small contracts. They did it well and it was a LOT cheaper than
> what we are doing now. in fact, they did it too well and the
> corporations couldn't make much profit. So the Republicans made sure
> that the accountants were fired and now the big corporations suck the
> money right out of the treasury.
>
>
>> I'm a big out doors person, spend every chance I can hiking,
>> fishing,
>>boating, camping and ATV riding so nobody gets upset at seeing trash or
>>pollution as I do, but at the same time I understand that many policies
>>were
>>putting a strangle hold on some of are companies to compete with the world
>>market. If you close down are companies because of some minor things and
>>just move them to another country that has no environmental policies at
>>all
>>then what's the bigger problem you created for the environment plus all
>>the
>>jobs you lost. That's why I like this administration they look for right
>>balance.
>
> And manufacturing has stopped moving to unregulated countries?
>
>
#128
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
CL (dnoyeB) Gilbert wrote:
> y_p_w wrote:
> > 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.
> >
>
> You sure about that? Often motors have a most efficient RPM level.
> They are not equally as efficient across all RPMs. With an electric
> motor you can run your gas motor closer to its most efficient speed.
I believe an internal combustion engine does have a theoretical
Carnot efficiency. It's usually when it's being maxed out. However -
you then run into the real world where the motor is subject to friction
and attached to a car. There's increased rolling resistance of the
tire (I believe roughly linear) as well as aerodynamic resistance
(increases exponentially).
Smaller engines are supposedly more efficient because they're
being worked harder and closer to their max efficiency. If you're
cruising at 70 on I-5 in a Prius, I doubt the electric motor has
anything to do with it getting 60+ MPG.
> Depends on the design I suppose.
Everything depends on design. :-)
> y_p_w wrote:
> > 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.
> >
>
> You sure about that? Often motors have a most efficient RPM level.
> They are not equally as efficient across all RPMs. With an electric
> motor you can run your gas motor closer to its most efficient speed.
I believe an internal combustion engine does have a theoretical
Carnot efficiency. It's usually when it's being maxed out. However -
you then run into the real world where the motor is subject to friction
and attached to a car. There's increased rolling resistance of the
tire (I believe roughly linear) as well as aerodynamic resistance
(increases exponentially).
Smaller engines are supposedly more efficient because they're
being worked harder and closer to their max efficiency. If you're
cruising at 70 on I-5 in a Prius, I doubt the electric motor has
anything to do with it getting 60+ MPG.
> Depends on the design I suppose.
Everything depends on design. :-)
#129
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Electricity - was Re: Hybrid cars
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 20:19:20 -0700, "Michael Pardee"
<michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote:
>"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news6ios1lvpfsqo0g140fu4i03a1rhh739st@4ax.com.. .
>> Of course, that expensive spot market can be supplied by unsold wind
>> power.
>>
>Unfortunately, not to any great extent. The problem is that contracts for
>peaking are usually made the previous day, on an hourly basis. The market is
>competitive to the point of being cutthroat, and the closer the time gets to
>the delivery time the higher the prices are; cheap power has already been
>bought. That is the problem with intermittent generation - how much can you
>produce between 1400 and 1500 hours tomorrow? How much can you produce in
>the coming hour, with much higher penalties if you can't? Allow too much for
>the vagaries of nature and there is no point being in business. Allow too
>little and the penalties will cost far more than you could ever make. Don't
>agree to the penalties and nobody will buy at any price.
>
>The proposed FERC rules are intended to reduce the effect of impending
>delivery, so intermittent generators can compete with the peakers as close
>as an hour to delivery time. That will necessarily drive the spot market
>through the roof as peaking producers try to make a living, but that's the
>tradeoff. In exchange, intermittent producers would have to become good
>citizens on the grid, doing their part to correct voltage sags and high VARs
>(bad phase angles.)
>
>Personally, I don't understand why the intermittent producers don't invest
>in water storage. The high up-front cost can be recovered at a more
>predictable rate than the cost of the generation equipment can.
Probably no suitable place to get or put the water. Pumped Storage
also has environmental drawbacks. It takes up land and may also have
other side effects. In another thread, a North Dakota university is
experimenting with using wind energy to produce hydrogen. There also
may be other good uses of unreliable source energy where that energy
is available most of the time.
>
>Mike
>
<michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote:
>"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news6ios1lvpfsqo0g140fu4i03a1rhh739st@4ax.com.. .
>> Of course, that expensive spot market can be supplied by unsold wind
>> power.
>>
>Unfortunately, not to any great extent. The problem is that contracts for
>peaking are usually made the previous day, on an hourly basis. The market is
>competitive to the point of being cutthroat, and the closer the time gets to
>the delivery time the higher the prices are; cheap power has already been
>bought. That is the problem with intermittent generation - how much can you
>produce between 1400 and 1500 hours tomorrow? How much can you produce in
>the coming hour, with much higher penalties if you can't? Allow too much for
>the vagaries of nature and there is no point being in business. Allow too
>little and the penalties will cost far more than you could ever make. Don't
>agree to the penalties and nobody will buy at any price.
>
>The proposed FERC rules are intended to reduce the effect of impending
>delivery, so intermittent generators can compete with the peakers as close
>as an hour to delivery time. That will necessarily drive the spot market
>through the roof as peaking producers try to make a living, but that's the
>tradeoff. In exchange, intermittent producers would have to become good
>citizens on the grid, doing their part to correct voltage sags and high VARs
>(bad phase angles.)
>
>Personally, I don't understand why the intermittent producers don't invest
>in water storage. The high up-front cost can be recovered at a more
>predictable rate than the cost of the generation equipment can.
Probably no suitable place to get or put the water. Pumped Storage
also has environmental drawbacks. It takes up land and may also have
other side effects. In another thread, a North Dakota university is
experimenting with using wind energy to produce hydrogen. There also
may be other good uses of unreliable source energy where that energy
is available most of the time.
>
>Mike
>
#130
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
Gordon McGrew wrote:
> If by it you mean Intelligent Design, a federal court just held that
> it was unconstitutional to teach it in a public school. Their finding
> was based on a Supreme Court decision that teaching creationism (same
> , different textbook) was unconstitutional.
Nope. Creationism teaches the Bible account of creation. ID only posits
that all this tremendously engineered stuff (the universe) didn't just
fall out of nowhere, but was engineered by an intelligent entity.
If I said the entity was Fromage from the planet Beepzap in the seventh
dimension, you'd be all over it. ID doesn't say it wasn't him.
--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.
> If by it you mean Intelligent Design, a federal court just held that
> it was unconstitutional to teach it in a public school. Their finding
> was based on a Supreme Court decision that teaching creationism (same
> , different textbook) was unconstitutional.
Nope. Creationism teaches the Bible account of creation. ID only posits
that all this tremendously engineered stuff (the universe) didn't just
fall out of nowhere, but was engineered by an intelligent entity.
If I said the entity was Fromage from the planet Beepzap in the seventh
dimension, you'd be all over it. ID doesn't say it wasn't him.
--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.
#131
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
clifto wrote:
> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>> If by it you mean Intelligent Design, a federal court just held that
>> it was unconstitutional to teach it in a public school. Their finding
>> was based on a Supreme Court decision that teaching creationism (same
>> , different textbook) was unconstitutional.
>
> Nope. Creationism teaches the Bible account of creation. ID only posits
> that all this tremendously engineered stuff (the universe) didn't just
> fall out of nowhere, but was engineered by an intelligent entity.
Don't kid yourself. ID is creationism in sheep's clothing.
> If I said the entity was Fromage from the planet Beepzap in the seventh
> dimension, you'd be all over it. ID doesn't say it wasn't him.
ID is being pushed by fundamentalist christians (and ONLY fundamentalist
xians) so it's obvious who the "designer" is supposed to be.
Anyway, ID is not science. Science is taking data and making sense out of
it. ID is throwing your hands in the air and saying "I'm not smart enough
to figure it out. Therefore, goddidit." ID is a cop-out, and
anti-intellectualism at its most pungent. It is the opposite of science.
--
http://www.ronniedobbs.com/
> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>> If by it you mean Intelligent Design, a federal court just held that
>> it was unconstitutional to teach it in a public school. Their finding
>> was based on a Supreme Court decision that teaching creationism (same
>> , different textbook) was unconstitutional.
>
> Nope. Creationism teaches the Bible account of creation. ID only posits
> that all this tremendously engineered stuff (the universe) didn't just
> fall out of nowhere, but was engineered by an intelligent entity.
Don't kid yourself. ID is creationism in sheep's clothing.
> If I said the entity was Fromage from the planet Beepzap in the seventh
> dimension, you'd be all over it. ID doesn't say it wasn't him.
ID is being pushed by fundamentalist christians (and ONLY fundamentalist
xians) so it's obvious who the "designer" is supposed to be.
Anyway, ID is not science. Science is taking data and making sense out of
it. ID is throwing your hands in the air and saying "I'm not smart enough
to figure it out. Therefore, goddidit." ID is a cop-out, and
anti-intellectualism at its most pungent. It is the opposite of science.
--
http://www.ronniedobbs.com/
#132
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
Art wrote:
> "clifto" <clifto@clifto.com> wrote...
>> Ronnie Dobbs wrote:
>>> Unfortunately the federally approved stem cell lines are all
>>> contaminated.
>>
>> Then those who insist on using embryonic/fetal stem cells shall have to
>> find private funding.
>
> So why did Bush go on tv and promise to federally fund useless research.
> Kind of like his war in Iraq.
Not useless at all.
<http://www.chennaionline.com/colnews/newsitem.asp?NEWSID=%7B729505D0-BB17-4675-A609-F6010C67FBB3%7D&CATEGORYNAME=Chennai>
OR
<http://tinyurl.com/8k7eq>
<http://www.expresshealthcaremgmt.com/200601/research01.shtml>
<http://professional.cancerconsultants.com/oncology_main_news.aspx?id=35897>
<http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/1/42006b.asp>
<http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1541560.htm>
<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/12/051222081946.htm>
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/18/ncells18.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/12/18/ixhome.html>
One I can't find but read about recently was about a person whose heart was
repaired using his own stem cells, sparing his life. (Googling on "stem cell"
gets a few gazillion hits on the Korean scandal). Maybe it was related to
<http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20051224/NOTE24-3/TPEntertainment/Columnists>
So basically, while the chuckleheads are whining about how they can't get
free money for what they *want* to do, others are actually rolling up
their sleeves and working with what they have to work miracles with stem
cells of non-fetal origin.
And then,
<http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/dec/05121902.html>
--
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...
>> Ronnie Dobbs wrote:
>>> Unfortunately the federally approved stem cell lines are all
>>> contaminated.
>>
>> Then those who insist on using embryonic/fetal stem cells shall have to
>> find private funding.
>
> So why did Bush go on tv and promise to federally fund useless research.
> Kind of like his war in Iraq.
Not useless at all.
<http://www.chennaionline.com/colnews/newsitem.asp?NEWSID=%7B729505D0-BB17-4675-A609-F6010C67FBB3%7D&CATEGORYNAME=Chennai>
OR
<http://tinyurl.com/8k7eq>
<http://www.expresshealthcaremgmt.com/200601/research01.shtml>
<http://professional.cancerconsultants.com/oncology_main_news.aspx?id=35897>
<http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/1/42006b.asp>
<http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1541560.htm>
<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/12/051222081946.htm>
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/18/ncells18.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/12/18/ixhome.html>
One I can't find but read about recently was about a person whose heart was
repaired using his own stem cells, sparing his life. (Googling on "stem cell"
gets a few gazillion hits on the Korean scandal). Maybe it was related to
<http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20051224/NOTE24-3/TPEntertainment/Columnists>
So basically, while the chuckleheads are whining about how they can't get
free money for what they *want* to do, others are actually rolling up
their sleeves and working with what they have to work miracles with stem
cells of non-fetal origin.
And then,
<http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/dec/05121902.html>
--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.
#133
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
In article <1137605430.341483.39820@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>,
y_p_w <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote:
>CL (dnoyeB) Gilbert wrote:
>> y_p_w wrote:
>> > 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.
>> >
>>
>> You sure about that? Often motors have a most efficient RPM level.
>> They are not equally as efficient across all RPMs. With an electric
>> motor you can run your gas motor closer to its most efficient speed.
>
>I believe an internal combustion engine does have a theoretical
>Carnot efficiency. It's usually when it's being maxed out. However -
>you then run into the real world where the motor is subject to friction
>and attached to a car. There's increased rolling resistance of the
>tire (I believe roughly linear) as well as aerodynamic resistance
>(increases exponentially).
Otto cycle engines achieve maximum efficiency when they are run at wide
open throttle. At wide open throttle, they also have a most efficient
rpm, based on the compromises made for the fixed timing. This engine
speed ***may*** be the rpm for max power or max torque.
An ideal hybrid would use a CVT to keep the engine near, or at, its ideal
engine speed, and the charging circuit would be excited so that the mechanical
plus electrical loads would be running the engine at wide open throttle.
If the two loads cannot exceed the max power of the engine, the ideal situation
has the electric motor powerful enough for cruising, and the engine is switched
off.
Of course, for an ideal hybrid that is only run at wide open throttle, the
way is open for engines with very good specific power, low weight, and good
fuel economy, but really bad part load efficiency-- gas turbines. All
previous automotive gas turbines have failed for bad part load performance and
severe turbo lag. A hybrid setup would solve the gas turbine's problems, as
it would never run at part load and the electric motor can cover for turbo
lag. Gas turbine installations are large, but most of the volume is ducting
that has very little weight. Compared to an otto cycle engine, they are very
simple and have very few parts. Unlike gas turbines in airline service, a
failure will not drop the vehicle from six miles up, nor does anyone really
care how heavy they are, so they are actually inexpensive.
>
>Smaller engines are supposedly more efficient because they're
>being worked harder and closer to their max efficiency. If you're
>cruising at 70 on I-5 in a Prius, I doubt the electric motor has
>anything to do with it getting 60+ MPG.
>
>> Depends on the design I suppose.
>
>Everything depends on design. :-)
>
y_p_w <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote:
>CL (dnoyeB) Gilbert wrote:
>> y_p_w wrote:
>> > 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.
>> >
>>
>> You sure about that? Often motors have a most efficient RPM level.
>> They are not equally as efficient across all RPMs. With an electric
>> motor you can run your gas motor closer to its most efficient speed.
>
>I believe an internal combustion engine does have a theoretical
>Carnot efficiency. It's usually when it's being maxed out. However -
>you then run into the real world where the motor is subject to friction
>and attached to a car. There's increased rolling resistance of the
>tire (I believe roughly linear) as well as aerodynamic resistance
>(increases exponentially).
Otto cycle engines achieve maximum efficiency when they are run at wide
open throttle. At wide open throttle, they also have a most efficient
rpm, based on the compromises made for the fixed timing. This engine
speed ***may*** be the rpm for max power or max torque.
An ideal hybrid would use a CVT to keep the engine near, or at, its ideal
engine speed, and the charging circuit would be excited so that the mechanical
plus electrical loads would be running the engine at wide open throttle.
If the two loads cannot exceed the max power of the engine, the ideal situation
has the electric motor powerful enough for cruising, and the engine is switched
off.
Of course, for an ideal hybrid that is only run at wide open throttle, the
way is open for engines with very good specific power, low weight, and good
fuel economy, but really bad part load efficiency-- gas turbines. All
previous automotive gas turbines have failed for bad part load performance and
severe turbo lag. A hybrid setup would solve the gas turbine's problems, as
it would never run at part load and the electric motor can cover for turbo
lag. Gas turbine installations are large, but most of the volume is ducting
that has very little weight. Compared to an otto cycle engine, they are very
simple and have very few parts. Unlike gas turbines in airline service, a
failure will not drop the vehicle from six miles up, nor does anyone really
care how heavy they are, so they are actually inexpensive.
>
>Smaller engines are supposedly more efficient because they're
>being worked harder and closer to their max efficiency. If you're
>cruising at 70 on I-5 in a Prius, I doubt the electric motor has
>anything to do with it getting 60+ MPG.
>
>> Depends on the design I suppose.
>
>Everything depends on design. :-)
>
#134
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Electricity - was Re: Hybrid cars
In article <john-6A3198.11433316012006@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
John A. Weeks III <john@johnweeks.com> wrote:
>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.
Sadly, economical energy storage causes the intermittents to make even less
economical sense, as it causes a race to the bottom in the electricity market.
Anything that can economically store energy from renewable sources can store
energy from base load plants. If there is enough of this storage available,
all electricity is sold at the base load rate, so the only way to lots of
money is through economies of scale. All other plants are shut down. Base
load operators will love this because they sell more power. Consumers will
love this because electricity is cheaper. The utilities will love this as
it takes the bite out of the spot market. The only losers are generators that
cannot turn a profit at the peak load rate. The environmentalists will also
have fits because the only economical methods of generation are coal, nuclear,
and (where geography permits) hydro.
John A. Weeks III <john@johnweeks.com> wrote:
>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.
Sadly, economical energy storage causes the intermittents to make even less
economical sense, as it causes a race to the bottom in the electricity market.
Anything that can economically store energy from renewable sources can store
energy from base load plants. If there is enough of this storage available,
all electricity is sold at the base load rate, so the only way to lots of
money is through economies of scale. All other plants are shut down. Base
load operators will love this because they sell more power. Consumers will
love this because electricity is cheaper. The utilities will love this as
it takes the bite out of the spot market. The only losers are generators that
cannot turn a profit at the peak load rate. The environmentalists will also
have fits because the only economical methods of generation are coal, nuclear,
and (where geography permits) hydro.
#135
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
y_p_w wrote:
>
> I believe an internal combustion engine does have a theoretical
> Carnot efficiency. It's usually when it's being maxed out. However -
> you then run into the real world where the motor is subject to friction
> and attached to a car. There's increased rolling resistance of the
> tire (I believe roughly linear) as well as aerodynamic resistance
> (increases exponentially).
>
> Smaller engines are supposedly more efficient because they're
> being worked harder and closer to their max efficiency. If you're
> cruising at 70 on I-5 in a Prius, I doubt the electric motor has
> anything to do with it getting 60+ MPG.
>
>
The rolling and aero resistance are not tied directly to engine rpm
because the gear ratio being used is indeterminant. Two cars of similar
weight at the same highway speed will have similar rolling resistance
regardless of engine speed.
However, rpm definitely has an effect on engine thermal efficiency (not
quite the same as Carnot efficiency, though related). In addition to
friction losses at high rpm, the volumetric efficiency losses at higher
rpm also contribute to loss of thermal efficiency. While we frequently
use the geometric compression ratio when computing engine thermal
efficiency and Carnot efficiency, this is a simplification. The
efficiency is determined by ratio of ACTUAL pressure in cylinder, and
lower volumetric efficiency lowers p max.
Second paragraph is entirely true- this is reason small engines get more
efficiency, even if car has same power-required at a given operating point.
>
> I believe an internal combustion engine does have a theoretical
> Carnot efficiency. It's usually when it's being maxed out. However -
> you then run into the real world where the motor is subject to friction
> and attached to a car. There's increased rolling resistance of the
> tire (I believe roughly linear) as well as aerodynamic resistance
> (increases exponentially).
>
> Smaller engines are supposedly more efficient because they're
> being worked harder and closer to their max efficiency. If you're
> cruising at 70 on I-5 in a Prius, I doubt the electric motor has
> anything to do with it getting 60+ MPG.
>
>
The rolling and aero resistance are not tied directly to engine rpm
because the gear ratio being used is indeterminant. Two cars of similar
weight at the same highway speed will have similar rolling resistance
regardless of engine speed.
However, rpm definitely has an effect on engine thermal efficiency (not
quite the same as Carnot efficiency, though related). In addition to
friction losses at high rpm, the volumetric efficiency losses at higher
rpm also contribute to loss of thermal efficiency. While we frequently
use the geometric compression ratio when computing engine thermal
efficiency and Carnot efficiency, this is a simplification. The
efficiency is determined by ratio of ACTUAL pressure in cylinder, and
lower volumetric efficiency lowers p max.
Second paragraph is entirely true- this is reason small engines get more
efficiency, even if car has same power-required at a given operating point.