The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: Rodney Kelp on 11 Aug 2007 08:21 RichD wrote: > On Jul 28, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> This is another reason why hybrids make more sense. Pure EVs >>>>> have too many limitations. >>>> If they could recharge in 10 mins, the US power grid would burn out >>> What about these? >>> http://altairnano.com/markets_amps.html >> Shockingly expensive. $75,000 per vehicle just for batteries. >> http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/07/altair_nanotech.html > > Expensive, who cares? We're talking about the > ENVIRONMENT, we can't worry about filty lucre. > What are you, a greedy Republican? > > Let the gov't fund it, won't cost a farthing! That's > why we need visionaries like Al Gore, bold men > not afraid to take on the special interests, leading > by example. > > -- > Rich > You can't fight the oil companies and all their stockholders.
From: MooseFET on 11 Aug 2007 09:13 On Aug 9, 7:22 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)My-Web- Site.com> wrote: > On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 02:38:38 -0700, RichD <r_delaney2...(a)yahoo.com> > wrote: > > > > >On Aug 8, Dan Bloomquist <publi...(a)lakeweb.com> wrote: > >> >>Shockingly expensive. $75,000 per vehicle just for batteries. > >> >>http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/07/altair_nanotech.html > > >> > Expensive, who cares? We're talking about the > >> > ENVIRONMENT...... > > >> But 'we' will ignore human nature and real world economies....... > >> One's ideals have nothing to do with our current paradigm.... > > >A story: > >Some years ago, I'm entering a Safeway, a > >pretty girl accosts me, she wants a signature > >on a petition to nuke the baby seals or > >something. I retort: "We have enough taxes > >and feelgood ecoprograms, I'l pass." > > >She answers: "It won't require new taxes, it > >willl be funded by bonds." > > >Yes folks, a breakthrough in political economy... > >gubmit programs can be paid for with bonds, > >NO TAXES NEEDED. > > >She was sweet and earnest and dim, a > >concerned citizen.. and a voter. Scary, huh? > > You should ask her if it's OK for a convicted felon to sign a > petition... then sign a fictitious name and address along with the > annotation "convicted felon" ;-) Whether that it is a felon matters varies from state to state.
From: James Arthur on 11 Aug 2007 09:21 On Aug 10, 6:43 am, MooseFET <kensm...(a)rahul.net> wrote: > On Aug 9, 9:59 am, James Arthur <dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 8, 10:22 pm, Richard Henry <pomer...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Aug 8, 9:57 pm, James Arthur <dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 8, 3:42 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > James Arthur wrote: > > > > > > Meanwhile, the US' total CO2 output fell last year. Has anyone > > > > > > noticed? I thought not. > > > > > > Obviously since it's not something that can result in increased fear and alarm, > > > > > the meeja won't be interested. > > > > > > Do you have a link for that ? > > > > > > Graham > > > > > See page 2 of this: > > > > http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/flash/flash.html > > > > The numbers indicate that this measure is an indicator of a depressed > > > economy. > > > Yes, the words say that, but the economy is thriving, not depressed. > > The economy is doing so-so at best. We have a mixed collection of > measures of it. The collection is always mixed--it's quite impossible for all sectors to simultaneously prosper, as many are competing. Overall, growth, employment, etc. are as good as it gets. If you're not happy now, you never will be. > > I did find it interesting that there's a surge in CO2 every election year. :-) > > Everyone was holding their breath. My theory? Politicians, flying in their private jets. ;-) Cheers, James Arthur
From: MooseFET on 11 Aug 2007 11:09 Google groups trouble trying 4th time: On Aug 10, 8:52 pm, James Arthur <dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Aug 10, 5:29 pm, MooseFET <kensm...(a)rahul.net> wrote: > > > On Aug 10, 11:14 am, James Arthur <dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Aug 10, 6:43 am, MooseFET <kensm...(a)rahul.net> wrote: > > [..] > > > > > The economy is doing so-so at best. We have a mixed collection of > > > > measures of it. > > > > Indications are always mixed--it's quite impossible for all sectors to > > > simultaneously boom, as many are in competition. > > > > Overall, growth, inflation, employment, etc. are as good as it gets. > > > If you're not happy now, you never will be. > > > You haven't looked closely enough. Right now the US is running a > > large deficit and has quite low interest rates. These are both things > > that in the short term stimulate the economy. It is like a car with > > the gas pressed all the way to the floor and only gets up to 45 MPH. > > It is a lot faster than I can run but still a lot less that should be > > expected. > > Exactly how fast do you think the economy should grow? The Federal > Reserve Board has been trying to *slow* the economy since mid-2004, > and that's still their focus today. Perhaps you should e-mail Mr. It isn't the growth rate that bothers me. The car is going 45 MPH that is a reasonable speed. It is the fact that the the foot is so close to the floor that worries me. > Bernanke: > > http://www.federalreserve.gov/feedback.cfm > > As for the deficit, I don't like it, but find it hard to understand > why you think it's related to GDP, or why 3% of GDP would make any > difference in the short haul. It won't. I either don't understand what you are trying to state there or you are trying to say that something that is well know to be true is false. I will let you restate the above. > > > The US has a decreasing size of middle class. The working class is > > seeing a net loss of standard of living. Most of the middle class is > > also seeing a decrease in standard of living. The debt is piling up > > and the average worker age is increasing. None of these are things by > > them selves would be a major problem but combined they point to a > > decline. > > > There is also a serious concentration of power and wealth happening. > > The trend is towards a small number of companies being a big fraction > > of the economy. This is never a good thing for the long term survival > > of an empire. It leads to a fragile situation. With many small > > companies, a mistake only impacts a small part of the economy. > > Increasingly, a mistake by a company impacts a larger part of the > > overal economy. > > I understand you believe these things. I invite you to show the > quantitative basis for those beliefs. > > It would help if you define some of your terms--what is "middle > class"? The middle class usually taken to be the socioeconomic class between the working class and the upper class. They are the businessmen and shop keepers etc. Working class are those who work for a wage (ie: most of the people). Of late, however, the upper end of the labor class has taken to calling its self middle class. > What is "standard of living"? Do you mean that real wages > have decreased? If they are collecting wages they really aren't middle class taking the classic definitions. But as many americans would define it, yes that would be included in the decrease. > Kindly show that. Be sure to include benefits-- > retirement and healthcare in your figures...the result may surprise > you. I doubt it: Smart business folks are starting to prepare for the decrease as in: http://www.foodprocessing.com/articles/2005/404.html Between 2001 and 2004, there was a 10.5% decrease in the portion of the middle class that had three months of wages in economic wealth. Average household income for working families when adjusted for inflation was $46,058 in 2000 and has since declined to $44,389. There has also been a decline in the average value of benifits. This article (below) shows the debt or decreases in savings to maintian the life style. http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0802/p02s01-usec.html?page=1 The article below makes the point about the growth being less than should be expected. The numbers are at the bottom. http://www.cbpp.org/8-9-05bud.htm Do you have any figures? On Aug 10, 8:52 pm, James Arthur <dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Aug 10, 5:29 pm, MooseFET <kensm...(a)rahul.net> wrote: > > > On Aug 10, 11:14 am, James Arthur <dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Aug 10, 6:43 am, MooseFET <kensm...(a)rahul.net> wrote: > > [..] > > > > > The economy is doing so-so at best. We have a mixed collection of > > > > measures of it. > > > > Indications are always mixed--it's quite impossible for all sectors to > > > simultaneously boom, as many are in competition. > > > > Overall, growth, inflation, employment, etc. are as good as it gets. > > > If you're not happy now, you never will be. > > > You haven't looked closely enough. Right now the US is running a > > large deficit and has quite low interest rates. These are both things > > that in the short term stimulate the economy. It is like a car with > > the gas pressed all the way to the floor and only gets up to 45 MPH. > > It is a lot faster than I can run but still a lot less that should be > > expected. > > Exactly how fast do you think the economy should grow? The Federal > Reserve Board has been trying to *slow* the economy since mid-2004, > and that's still their focus today. Perhaps you should e-mail Mr. > Bernanke: > > http://www.federalreserve.gov/feedback.cfm > > As for the deficit, I don't like it, but find it hard to understand > why you think it's related to GDP, or why 3% of GDP would make any > difference in the short haul. It won't. > > > The US has a decreasing size of middle class. The working class is > > seeing a net loss of standard of living. Most of the middle class is > > also seeing a decrease in standard of living. The debt is piling up > > and the average worker age is increasing. None of these are things by > > them selves would be a major problem but combined they point to a > > decline. > > > There is also a serious concentration of power and wealth happening. > > The trend is towards a small number of companies being a big fraction > > of the economy. This is never a good thing for the long term survival > > of an empire. It leads to a fragile situation. With many small > > companies, a mistake only impacts a small part of the economy. > > Increasingly, a mistake by a company impacts a larger part of the > > overal economy. > > I understand you believe these things. I invite you to show the > quantitative basis for those beliefs. > > It would help if you define some of your terms--what is "middle > class"? What is "standard of living"? Do you mean that real wages > have decreased? Kindly show that. Be sure to include benefits-- > retirement and healthcare in your figures...the result may surprise > you. > > Cheers, > James Arthur
From: krw on 11 Aug 2007 17:02
In article <1186038305.447318.213970(a)x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, pomerado(a)hotmail.com says... > On Aug 1, 11:01 pm, JosephKK <joseph_barr...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > Richard Henry pomer...(a)hotmail.com posted to sci.electronics.design: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 31, 9:38 pm, JosephKK <joseph_barr...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > >> MooseFET kensm...(a)rahul.net posted to sci.electronics.design: > > > > >> > On Jul 31, 6:48 am, John Larkin > > >> > <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > >> >> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 23:31:20 -0700, Richard Henry > > > > >> >> <pomer...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> >On Jul 30, 8:25 pm, krw <k...(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > > >> >> >> In article > > >> >> >> <1185850948.051175.139...(a)d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, > > >> >> >> pomer...(a)hotmail.com says... > > > > >> >> >> > On Jul 30, 7:20 pm, Jim Thompson > > >> >> >> > <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)My- Web-Site.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> > > On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:12:03 -0700, Richard Henry > > > > >> >> >> > > <pomer...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> >> > > >On Jul 30, 5:48 pm, Jim Thompson > > >> >> >> > > ><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)My- Web-Site.com> > > >> >> >> > > >wrote: > > >> >> >> > > >> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 17:30:01 -0700, "J.A. Legris" > > > > >> >> >> > > >> >- I said fuel consumption will never decrease much > > >> >> >> > > >> >unless cars are much lighter, but even radically > > >> >> >> > > >> >lighter vehicles are no long-term solution on this > > >> >> >> > > >> >overpopulated planet > > > > >> >> >> > > >> Amen! I keep telling people that, and they look at > > >> >> >> > > >> me like I'm some kind of idiot. > > > > >> >> >> > > >You have also told us how you like to drive your big > > >> >> >> > > >import illegally fast and tried to rationalize it by > > >> >> >> > > >claiming that among the vehicle's luxury features is > > >> >> >> > > >that it runs more efficiently at high speed. > > > > >> >> >> > > I didn't rationalize anything. However I do agree that > > >> >> >> > > leftist weenies should be taxed more heavily to support > > >> >> >> > > my excesses ;-) > > > > >> >> >> > > And I certainly have no problem with YOU driving a tin > > >> >> >> > > can, just NOT my children and grandchildren ;-) > > > > >> >> >> > OOHH!. Think of the children... > > > > >> >> >> > You sound like a leftist weenie. > > > > >> >> >> Not at all. Not "the" children. *HIS* children. There is > > >> >> >> a difference. > > > > >> >> >> > Please explain again the more-efficient-at-higher-speed > > >> >> >> > feature. > > > > >> >> >> It's entirely possible as was explained at the time. > > > > >> >> >It was bs then and it's bs now. All fancy gearing and > > >> >> >ignition tricks will be overcome by the inevitability of the > > >> >> >non-linearity of increase of air resistance with speed. > > > > >> >> The air resistance is highly nonlinear, cubic power:speed > > >> >> roughly, whereas other losses are essentially independent of > > >> >> speed. Every car will have an optimum speed for miles/gallon, > > >> >> and it won't be zero. > > > > >> > It also won't be much over about 50MPH. It takes about 15 HP > > >> > to push > > >> > a modest sized car at 50MPH. The windage losses per mile run > > >> > as just about the square of the speed. > > > > >> Not necessarily. My first new car got about 22 mpg at 55 mph and > > >> about 26 mpg at 70 mph. Back then i had plenty of documentation > > >> to > > >> back it up. Kinda funny, 70 mph occurred right the rmp torque > > >> peak. It couldn't be a coincidence could it? > > > > > Documentation? > > > > > The first question would be: How did you measure it? > > > > Quite simply, miles traveled divided by fuel to top up again. With > > trip the odometer it was very easy. > > So you drove 70 mph between fillups? I did (well, 75mph most of the way) for ten hours Wednesday. The only stops were for gas and water. I only wish I got close to 26mpg. -- Keith |