$5,000 Retro Fit Hybrid Kit
in [Basics]
|
Prev: Video about wardforce
Next: Gerber files
From: Bret Cahill on 19 Nov 2009 14:35 On Nov 19, 9:05 am, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:40:17 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill > > > > > > <BretCah...(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >>electronics is > >> >> >> >> accessible and fun. > > >> >> >> >We need a motor - generator that is efficient over a broad rpm range > >> >> >> >and doesn't require rare earth elements. > > >> >> >> Why? Where would you get the batteries to run it? > > >> >> >http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/23877/?a=f > > >> >> Cool. They do a press release a week after they get a grant, about the > >> >> thing they hope they can invent. > > >> >Were it not for massive government funding combustion gas turbines > >> >would never have been developed, certainly not in a timely fashion. > > >> Absurd. > > >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_turbine#History > > >The axial flow machine now used in most commercial aviation was first > >proposed in Paris in 1853. > > >No commercial development whatsoever for 90 years. > > >After massive governmental spending in the 1940s GTs were developed > >enough to become a commercial success. > > >We see the same thing with Stirling except the time lag is 200 years. > > >The Swedes spent a lot of taxpayer money and developed a 200 bar > >engine for their submarines which was further developed by Sandia > >[more gummint funding] and a utility, San Diego Gas and Electric > >[quasi gummint]. > > >Some transportation breakthroughs might be done privately, i. e.,the > >wheel motor, but it's crazy to think that all energy solutions can be > >developed in the garage following the software model. > > >Bret Cahill > > You sound like a typical leftist: don't really understand technology > or economics, yet determined to have dominant political control over > both. Anyone, good or evil, can prevail when his opponents all cut and run from the issues. Politics is a lot like that PepsiCo story where the secretary who was "too busy" to give a complaint to company lawyers. It was a dumb case. Two guys claimed that they invented bottled water or some such nonsense. It was easy to win but PepsiCo's lawyers never heard about the complaint and never made an appearance in court. The bottled water guys won by default and the judge ordered PepsiCo to pay them over a billion to the plaintiffs. Bret Cahill "95% of life is just showing up." -- Woody Allen
From: Bernd Felsche on 19 Nov 2009 18:33 John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >Bret Cahill <BretCahill(a)aol.com> wrote: >>After massive governmental spending in the 1940s GTs were developed >>enough to become a commercial success. >> >>We see the same thing with Stirling except the time lag is 200 years. >> >>The Swedes spent a lot of taxpayer money and developed a 200 bar >>engine for their submarines which was further developed by Sandia >>[more gummint funding] and a utility, San Diego Gas and Electric >>[quasi gummint]. >>Some transportation breakthroughs might be done privately, i. e.,the >>wheel motor, but it's crazy to think that all energy solutions can be >>developed in the garage following the software model. >You sound like a typical leftist: don't really understand technology >or economics, yet determined to have dominant political control over >both. The first two are pre-requisites for the third. -- /"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Politics is the art of looking for trouble, X against HTML mail | finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly / \ and postings | and applying the wrong remedies - Groucho Marx
From: Bernd Felsche on 19 Nov 2009 18:36 Bret Cahill <BretCahill(a)peoplepc.com> wrote: > John Larkin wrote: >> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:40:17 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill >> >Some transportation breakthroughs might be done privately, i. e.,the >> >wheel motor, but it's crazy to think that all energy solutions can be >> >developed in the garage following the software model. Wheel motors are not a breakthrough. vis Lohner Porsche. Hub motors. Over 100 years ago. >> You sound like a typical leftist: don't really understand technology >> or economics, yet determined to have dominant political control over >> both. >Anyone, good or evil, can prevail when his opponents all cut and run >from the issues. Nobody can prevail over evil physical limits. -- /"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Politics is the art of looking for trouble, X against HTML mail | finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly / \ and postings | and applying the wrong remedies - Groucho Marx
From: Bret Cahill on 19 Nov 2009 23:01 > >> >Some transportation breakthroughs might be done privately, i. e.,the > >> >wheel motor, but it's crazy to think that all energy solutions can be > >> >developed in the garage following the software model. > > Wheel motors are not a breakthrough. Everything was a breakthrough once upon a time. > vis Lohner Porsche. Hub motors. > Over 100 years ago. Talking about unsprung weight! Bret cahill
From: Bernd Felsche on 16 Dec 2009 18:27
Bret Cahill <BretCahill(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >> >>electronics is >> >> >> accessible and fun. >> >> >> >We need a motor - generator that is efficient over a broad rpm range >> >> >and doesn't require rare earth elements. >> >> >> Why? Where would you get the batteries to run it? >> >> >http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/23877/?a=f >> >> Cool. They do a press release a week after they get a grant, about the >> thing they hope they can invent. >Were it not for massive government funding combustion gas turbines >would never have been developed, certainly not in a timely fashion. Oh really? There was a lot of private enterprise developing gas turbines and a great deal of competition within the industry. The physical limits of early implementations were understood and were known to be resolvable by using more esoteric materials. >Eventually they'll develop a cost effective battery or they'll prove >that it's impossible. We already know the dead ends, The fundamental, physical limits. >The funding speeds things up. Nope. it just speeds up people who don't know any better, and thhose seeking to profit from ignorance, making some dough. -- /"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | The most dangerous ignorance is the X against HTML mail | ignorance of the educated class. / \ and postings | -- Thomas Sowell |