$5,000 Retro Fit Hybrid Kit
in [Basics]
|
Prev: Video about wardforce
Next: Gerber files
From: John Larkin on 15 Nov 2009 14:13 On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 17:08:35 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill <BretCahill(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >> >> Even the prototype is only $100K. >> >> >> >>http://www.planetanalog.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=218400113&cid... >> >> >> >> Leave the big engine in there for the road trips. >> >> >> >> The unsprung weight doubles and the batteries might not always be near >> >> >> the original design center of mass but aside from that it's a really >> >> >> good idea. >> >> >> "What makes our approach different is we don't need to modify anything >> >> in existing vehicles to turn them into a hybrid," said Perry. "We >> >> install the motor in the space between the brake mechanism and the hub >> >> without any other modifications." >> >> >> I wish the image had the resolution to be readable, >> >> >I couldn't find any patents or applications for Charles Perry. �It was >> >probably invented back in the '70s. >> >> >Several companies are coming out with them: >> >> >http://nashville.bizjournals.com/nashville/stories/2009/10/12/story5.... >> >> This is the Mechanics Illustrated phenomenon: > >The best lampoon was National Lampoon on MI: > >"Convert your piano to diesel power." > >Maybe the letter of recommendation from an admitted pimp / vandal to >Harvard Law School was better. > >"And since I was living under an assumed name . . ." > >> every month all sorts of >> amazing inventions are announced, all of which will revolutionize our >> lives and be on the market next year. That's been going on for 60 >> years or so. And they missed most of the things that have in fact >> revolutionized our lives. >> >> The systems you cite here don't appear to even have working prototypes >> in operation. And none appear to involve technology that wasn't >> available 10 years ago. > >Or a century ago. > >A lot of stuff gets patented before it's cost effective. > >> Explain that. > >The price of fuel hadn't gone over $5/gallon back then. Current US average at the pump is about $2.60. John
From: Bret Cahill on 15 Nov 2009 19:59 > >>>>The price of fuel hadn't gone over $5/gallon back then. > > >>> Current US average at the pump is about $2.60. > > >>The price of fuel should include the true costs of getting the raw > >>material > >>(crude oil) > > > If I'm not paying for the cost of the crude oil when I buy gas, who > > is? > > All people who pay taxes of any kind, and our future generations who will > be paying the debt we are accumulating. Not that it's an immediate concern but the real cost is the climate. The NY Times recently ran an article claiming that now most economists agree that it will be more expensive for society to ignore AGW than to do something about it. The only long term solution is to get ground transportation powered by the grid. > Fuel taxes don't even pay for > keeping highways in good repair. Bureaucrats already have plans to tax everyone on a per mile basis -- no more privacy motoring around. > We should be paying $2 or more per gallon > in addition to the price we now pay. The Car Talk guys said it should be $10. > Truckers who do most of the damage to > roadways are essentially subsidized to keep their inefficient rigs rolling, > and railroads are penalized so as not to create "unfair" competition. Highway taxes and even AGW are all moot issues in the near term. Buffet just bought a coal hauling RR, BNSF. The world's most astute investor just bet the ranch that the price of liquid fuel will soon soar and there is money to be made hauling coal. Back in the '70s during the OPEC embargo Norfolk and Western which used coal fired steam engines all the way up into the '60s made so much money they bought Southern RR. At times there were up to 80 coal colliers waiting out in Hampton Roads lined up for Pier 12. Bret Cahill "Southern Serves the South Look Ahead, Look South" -- Southern RR slogan
From: John Larkin on 15 Nov 2009 20:33 On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:59:34 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill <BretCahill(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> >>>>The price of fuel hadn't gone over $5/gallon back then. >> >> >>> Current US average at the pump is about $2.60. >> >> >>The price of fuel should include the true costs of getting the raw >> >>material >> >>(crude oil) >> >> > If I'm not paying for the cost of the crude oil when I buy gas, who >> > is? >> >> All people who pay taxes of any kind, and our future generations who will >> be paying the debt we are accumulating. Nobody will pay the debt. We'll just print money. > >Not that it's an immediate concern but the real cost is the climate. > >The NY Times recently ran an article claiming that now most economists >agree that it will be more expensive for society to ignore AGW than to >do something about it. The "most economists agree" bit is hilarious. And even if they did agree, they'd usually be wrong. You guys need something productive to do. All this worrying about the future is making you neurotic. John
From: Bret Cahill on 16 Nov 2009 10:36 > >> >>>>The price of fuel hadn't gone over $5/gallon back then. > > >> >>> Current US average at the pump is about $2.60. > > >> >>The price of fuel should include the true costs of getting the raw > >> >>material > >> >>(crude oil) > > >> > If I'm not paying for the cost of the crude oil when I buy gas, who > >> > is? > > >> All people who pay taxes of any kind, and our future generations who will > >> be paying the debt we are accumulating. > > Nobody will pay the debt. We'll just print money. That's why fuel will be $5/gallon again next year and $10/gallon in 2 years. > >Not that it's an immediate concern but the real cost is the climate. > > >The NY Times recently ran an article claiming that now most economists > >agree that it will be more expensive for society to ignore AGW than to > >do something about it. > The "most economists agree" bit is hilarious. They were including the shills at Hoover and the Chicago School. > And even if they did > agree, they'd usually be wrong. I'ld like to see the sample myself. > You guys need something productive to do. All this worrying about the > future is making you neurotic. Lots of opportunities in technical fields especially materials science and heat transfer. And in hauling coal. Bret Cahill
From: John Larkin on 16 Nov 2009 11:58
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 07:36:41 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill <BretCahill(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >> >>>>The price of fuel hadn't gone over $5/gallon back then. >> >> >> >>> Current US average at the pump is about $2.60. >> >> >> >>The price of fuel should include the true costs of getting the raw >> >> >>material >> >> >>(crude oil) >> >> >> > If I'm not paying for the cost of the crude oil when I buy gas, who >> >> > is? >> >> >> All people who pay taxes of any kind, and our future generations who will >> >> be paying the debt we are accumulating. >> >> Nobody will pay the debt. We'll just print money. > >That's why fuel will be $5/gallon again next year and $10/gallon in 2 >years. > >> >Not that it's an immediate concern but the real cost is the climate. >> >> >The NY Times recently ran an article claiming that now most economists >> >agree that it will be more expensive for society to ignore AGW than to >> >do something about it. > >> The "most economists agree" bit is hilarious. > >They were including the shills at Hoover and the Chicago School. > >> And even if they did >> agree, they'd usually be wrong. > >I'ld like to see the sample myself. > >> You guys need something productive to do. All this worrying about the >> future is making you neurotic. > >Lots of opportunities in technical fields especially materials science >and heat transfer. > >And in hauling coal. > > >Bret Cahill > Given that you like to post to an electronics group, you might consider learning a little about electronics. Unlike neurotic fretting about climate and energy issues that you can't control, electronics is accessible and fun. John |