"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

Dobles were the most advanced steam cars of all time. In the late
'20s, whcn a Ford cost $260, a Doble cost $10,000 or more.

Steam technology on a small scale hasn't progressed very much since.
The Doble was a work of genius and very advanced. Turbines are out
for
cars. You need positive-displacement engines, like IC piston
engines.
Workable steam engines are complex; boilers are maintenance
headaches;
and so on.

Ed Huntress

Development work on small steam turbines at Doble led to an American
jet engine proposal contemporary with the British, German and Italian
efforts, but not as well supported:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_J37

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 17:56:32 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:58:08 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:18:06 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 23:06:30 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 19:27:24 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 01:17:20 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Feb 25, 7:24*pm, Transition Zone wrote:
On Feb 25, 12:58*pm, harry wrote:







On Feb 25, 4:56*pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

The Daring Dufas wrote:

Electric vehicles are wonderful for the capabilities they have. The
electric car can never take the place of a gasoline powered vehicle
until it has the range and convenience of what we have now. Perhaps
a small nuclear reactor would give an electrically driven vehicle the
ability to travel long distances without having to stop every 50 miles
to recharge the battery. My concept of vehicle range is one that travels
far enough and long enough so that I must stop to empty my bladder
before the vehicle runs out of power. ^_^

* *There were five mounting locations for 30 gallon tanks on my old
stepvan service truck. *Fully loaded, it got over 20 MPG or 600+ miles
per tank. Dual tanks easily let you drive over a thousand miles. *All
five would take you over 3000 miles, if you could afford to fill all of
them. ;-)

* In Europe we let the train take the strain. *Or the bus.

*Or fly.

North of Washington, we do that in the states, too.

Ah. The area first colonised, hence the most civilised:-)

No, idiot, the area with the densest people, like Europe.

Oh..that would be Northern Michigan, rather than the East Coast.

No, even the back-woods hicks of the UP are no match for their NE
cousins. Evidence, Mayor Doomberg.

The UP was explored and settled long before most of the Eastern states

I kinda think NY and MA were settled a bit before, though they're
still pretty unsettling places to live.

Actually..not true. But they are indeed pretty unsettling places to
live.


The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:44:14 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:38:34 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Ed Huntress wrote:


If you have CNG fueling stations around, though, you're lucky. If
there are any here, I don't know about them. There's one in Newark
(don't go there on purpose, please...) and another on Staten Island.
(only about 10 miles, but the toll is $12 cash, one-way. No thanks.)


FWIW, Flying J and Pilot are rolling out CNG fueling stations to cater
long haul truckers. If this works, then it might be a catalyst for more.

That would be a good step.

I have read, without being able to evaluate it myself, that setting up
CNG fueling stations is fairly easy. Compressors must be powerful,
though, to get that pipeline gas up to transportation-fuel pressures
at high speed.

Does CNG work in a diesel engine? Or does it require spark plugs?

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On 2/27/2013 8:16 PM, Gunner wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:44:14 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:38:34 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Ed Huntress wrote:


If you have CNG fueling stations around, though, you're lucky. If
there are any here, I don't know about them. There's one in Newark
(don't go there on purpose, please...) and another on Staten Island.
(only about 10 miles, but the toll is $12 cash, one-way. No thanks.)


FWIW, Flying J and Pilot are rolling out CNG fueling stations to cater
long haul truckers. If this works, then it might be a catalyst for more.

That would be a good step.

I have read, without being able to evaluate it myself, that setting up
CNG fueling stations is fairly easy. Compressors must be powerful,
though, to get that pipeline gas up to transportation-fuel pressures
at high speed.

Does CNG work in a diesel engine? Or does it require spark plugs?



Seems straightforward:
http://www.dieselperformanceproducts.com/index.html

(I'm no expert -never knew of it before tonight)

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:16:11 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:44:14 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:38:34 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Ed Huntress wrote:


If you have CNG fueling stations around, though, you're lucky. If
there are any here, I don't know about them. There's one in Newark
(don't go there on purpose, please...) and another on Staten Island.
(only about 10 miles, but the toll is $12 cash, one-way. No thanks.)


FWIW, Flying J and Pilot are rolling out CNG fueling stations to cater
long haul truckers. If this works, then it might be a catalyst for more.

That would be a good step.

I have read, without being able to evaluate it myself, that setting up
CNG fueling stations is fairly easy. Compressors must be powerful,
though, to get that pipeline gas up to transportation-fuel pressures
at high speed.

Does CNG work in a diesel engine? Or does it require spark plugs?

Either one. And a third option: HCCI (homogeneous charge, compression
ignition, like a model airplane "diesel"-that-isn't-really-a-diesel.)

It's getting really tough to follow the research on engine fuels these
days. They're throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks --
including HCCI natural gas supplemented with direct-injected ethanol.
No kidding. It's crazy stuff.

Just look at some of the research paper titles for natural gas:

http://www.sae.org/search?searchfiel...0gas&typ=paper

(sort by date if you just want the latest)

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:18:50 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:01:34 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:59:42 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:36:04 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:16:06 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 08:53:50 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Doug wrote:

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 05:16:38 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Doug wrote:

Agreed. I've read they will have filling stations for electric cars
too and I think they already have some as a prototype but I don't
recall where.


At the current rate, it will take hundreds of years to convert to
electric vehicles.

Why?


Think about it. The technology isn't there. The power generation
isn't there. It can take 25 years to get the permits to build & put one
power plant on line. Viable electric vehicles have been "Just around
the corner" for 100 years. Picture this: Every car in town is
electric. A massive power failure and after a few days most of them are
sitting on the road where the batteries died. How long before people
start stealing the expensive batteries to replace their failed batteries
instead of paying the dealer full retail?

Study electronics for yourself, and do some heavy math. You'll see
for yourself. There is very little excess capacity in the grid, and the
nighttime usage allows them to take some generators or controls down for
minor repairs. Without that, the whole facility is run till it needs a
major overhaul, which can take months or years. The entire grid is
aging, and a lot of equipment is well past its design life. Between the
MBAs, NIMBYs and Greenies, it's a looming crisis.

After a major power failure, half the people in an area buy
gernerators. If we have electric cars, we'll just have to buy little
trailers to carry the generators...

Seriously, electric cars are likely to have only slow and incremental
growth. The most likely scenario I've seen involves several
configurations and energy sources: all-electrics for people who have
another car; plug-in hybrids (with or without trailers g);
liquid-fuel cars (gasoline; diesel; gasohol) and CNG cars. Hydrogen
fuel cells seem, to me, to be least likely, or to require some
breakthrough that we don't know about yet. The wire-in-road electrics
sound like "a helicopter in every garage."

It will be interesting to see how all of these types jocky for market
share. Lithium-based batteries sound like they're going to be a
limiting factor for electrics, but there is always another battery
technology in a lab somewhere. Don't bet the farm or count them out.


So why dont they build steam cars?

1) Poor thermodynamic efficiency (Stanleys and Dobles could get away
with very low efficiencies, because IC engines at the time weren't
much better)

2) High cost

3) High maintenance


The last two would appear to be undocumented

Care to try again?

Nope. I'm sure that you could find out if you cared to. Do your
homework first.

Start by looking up high-efficiency steam engines. Note how complex
they become when you get above 25% or so thermodynamic efficiency. In
small sizes, like with an automobile, they are *extremely* difficult,
if not impossible. IC engine research now is working in the range of
40 - 43% thermodynamic efficiency. Steam would have to be close, which
it is not.

So this is a Hollywood special effects piece?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw6NFmcnW-8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrZJsvDy19I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N98mXwTsx5A

Say...isnt the internal combustion engine somewhere around 28%
effecient?


The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:57:25 -0800 (PST), bob haller
wrote:

On Feb 27, 12:22*pm, harry wrote:
On Feb 27, 1:35*pm, "
wrote:





On Feb 27, 2:52*am, harry wrote:

On Feb 27, 12:09*am, wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 20:45:43 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:04:03 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 13:24:06 -0500, wrote:

The price of a Volt puts it totally out of the running. Car and Driver
ran the numbers and said the Cruze was a better deal.

Better deal? *Does that mean everybody should buy the one car that Car
and Driver says is a "better deal?"
+20,000 Volts were sold last year. *According to Forbes, the Volt "is
outselling about half of all cars marketed in the U.S."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimgorze...ust-chevrolet-...
So your "totally out of the running" is a personal opinion.

I agree the
government bribe may shade that a little but the real cost is just
being foisted off on the people who don't buy a Volt. If everyone
bought one, the rebate simply moves from your car payment to your tax
bill.

The all-electric Nissan Leaf gets more preference with government
incentives than the Volt.
And you probably meant to say "federal and state government bribes."
Many states are kicking in.
http://www.pluginamerica.org/incentives
I noticed a guy in the Volt forum said he got a $6k tax credit from
Colorado to add to the $7.5k from the fed.

So the poor are subsidizing the rich. That sounds right, at least the
way it works here. They also subsidize the people who can afford
$50,000 solar PV arrays.
I am surprised the big business republicans are not really pushing
this. *but maybe they are.

No, it's the big business Democrats who are really pushing this. *Wake
up.

Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor.
In America the rich have always stolen from the poor.
They import poor people for this purpose.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dumb as ever. *If by "importing poor people", you mean
Mexicans, they obviously come here because there is
far more opportunity to earn money here than there is
in Mexico. *They come because it makes their life better
for them and their families back in Mexico that they send
money they earn to. *They come because it's a step UP
on the economic ladder for them. *That is how free markets
work.

Then, just like the clueless libs, you assume everything
is static. *That whoever had a low income in 1980, 1990,
2000 still has a low income today. * That of course isn't
true. *People start out at a low paying job and then work
their way up to a better job. *Or start a business. *That is how
it works, at least for those that want to get off their ass. *I just
had two painters over here to give me quotes on painting
a great room and a foyer, *$3,600 - $4,000. *Are you gonna
tell us that skill set is beyond the reach of the common
person? *I could do that job myself in a week. *Do the math
at what income that works out to.

The US economy has always relies on cheap labour.
First it was slaves. *Who had no say in the matter.

Then it was sweatshops for deluded immigrants.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_shop

Now it's Mexicans. *They come because the USA has destroyed their
economy.

nope we import the stuff directly from the slave labor of china

Utter nonsense. The unemployment rate in E. China is less than 1%. If
workers don't want to show up for work, they don't. If they're fired,
there's always another job. Companies are moving because the labor
situation is so bad.

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:13:39 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 17:56:32 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:58:08 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:18:06 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 23:06:30 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 19:27:24 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 01:17:20 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Feb 25, 7:24*pm, Transition Zone wrote:
On Feb 25, 12:58*pm, harry wrote:







On Feb 25, 4:56*pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

The Daring Dufas wrote:

Electric vehicles are wonderful for the capabilities they have. The
electric car can never take the place of a gasoline powered vehicle
until it has the range and convenience of what we have now. Perhaps
a small nuclear reactor would give an electrically driven vehicle the
ability to travel long distances without having to stop every 50 miles
to recharge the battery. My concept of vehicle range is one that travels
far enough and long enough so that I must stop to empty my bladder
before the vehicle runs out of power. ^_^

* *There were five mounting locations for 30 gallon tanks on my old
stepvan service truck. *Fully loaded, it got over 20 MPG or 600+ miles
per tank. Dual tanks easily let you drive over a thousand miles. *All
five would take you over 3000 miles, if you could afford to fill all of
them. ;-)

* In Europe we let the train take the strain. *Or the bus.

*Or fly.

North of Washington, we do that in the states, too.

Ah. The area first colonised, hence the most civilised:-)

No, idiot, the area with the densest people, like Europe.

Oh..that would be Northern Michigan, rather than the East Coast.

No, even the back-woods hicks of the UP are no match for their NE
cousins. Evidence, Mayor Doomberg.

The UP was explored and settled long before most of the Eastern states

I kinda think NY and MA were settled a bit before, though they're
still pretty unsettling places to live.

Actually..not true.

Go on... (Is that you, harry?)

But they are indeed pretty unsettling places to live.

The only places worse are IL and CA.

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:45:12 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


wrote:

The limp-wristed Brits won't even keep the Falklands for much longer.


Today's Brits wouldn't have lasted a day in W.W. II.

Who would want them?

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 20:29:14 -0600, AMuzi wrote:

On 2/27/2013 8:16 PM, Gunner wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:44:14 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:38:34 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Ed Huntress wrote:


If you have CNG fueling stations around, though, you're lucky. If
there are any here, I don't know about them. There's one in Newark
(don't go there on purpose, please...) and another on Staten Island.
(only about 10 miles, but the toll is $12 cash, one-way. No thanks.)


FWIW, Flying J and Pilot are rolling out CNG fueling stations to cater
long haul truckers. If this works, then it might be a catalyst for more.

That would be a good step.

I have read, without being able to evaluate it myself, that setting up
CNG fueling stations is fairly easy. Compressors must be powerful,
though, to get that pipeline gas up to transportation-fuel pressures
at high speed.

Does CNG work in a diesel engine? Or does it require spark plugs?



Seems straightforward:
http://www.dieselperformanceproducts.com/index.html

(I'm no expert -never knew of it before tonight)


Thats propane injection,..to be used in conjunction with liquid fuels,
or did I read it wrong?

Gunner

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On 2/27/2013 8:16 PM, Gunner wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:44:14 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:38:34 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Ed Huntress wrote:


If you have CNG fueling stations around, though, you're lucky. If
there are any here, I don't know about them. There's one in Newark
(don't go there on purpose, please...) and another on Staten Island.
(only about 10 miles, but the toll is $12 cash, one-way. No thanks.)


FWIW, Flying J and Pilot are rolling out CNG fueling stations to cater
long haul truckers. If this works, then it might be a catalyst for more.

That would be a good step.

I have read, without being able to evaluate it myself, that setting up
CNG fueling stations is fairly easy. Compressors must be powerful,
though, to get that pipeline gas up to transportation-fuel pressures
at high speed.

Does CNG work in a diesel engine? Or does it require spark plugs?

Gunner


Check out this page on diesel engines running on NG. ^_^

http://www.wartsila.com/en/media/Art...-the-caribbean

http://tinyurl.com/cwwsd24

TDD

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:29:49 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:18:50 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:01:34 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:59:42 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:36:04 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:16:06 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 08:53:50 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Doug wrote:

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 05:16:38 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Doug wrote:

Agreed. I've read they will have filling stations for electric cars
too and I think they already have some as a prototype but I don't
recall where.


At the current rate, it will take hundreds of years to convert to
electric vehicles.

Why?


Think about it. The technology isn't there. The power generation
isn't there. It can take 25 years to get the permits to build & put one
power plant on line. Viable electric vehicles have been "Just around
the corner" for 100 years. Picture this: Every car in town is
electric. A massive power failure and after a few days most of them are
sitting on the road where the batteries died. How long before people
start stealing the expensive batteries to replace their failed batteries
instead of paying the dealer full retail?

Study electronics for yourself, and do some heavy math. You'll see
for yourself. There is very little excess capacity in the grid, and the
nighttime usage allows them to take some generators or controls down for
minor repairs. Without that, the whole facility is run till it needs a
major overhaul, which can take months or years. The entire grid is
aging, and a lot of equipment is well past its design life. Between the
MBAs, NIMBYs and Greenies, it's a looming crisis.

After a major power failure, half the people in an area buy
gernerators. If we have electric cars, we'll just have to buy little
trailers to carry the generators...

Seriously, electric cars are likely to have only slow and incremental
growth. The most likely scenario I've seen involves several
configurations and energy sources: all-electrics for people who have
another car; plug-in hybrids (with or without trailers g);
liquid-fuel cars (gasoline; diesel; gasohol) and CNG cars. Hydrogen
fuel cells seem, to me, to be least likely, or to require some
breakthrough that we don't know about yet. The wire-in-road electrics
sound like "a helicopter in every garage."

It will be interesting to see how all of these types jocky for market
share. Lithium-based batteries sound like they're going to be a
limiting factor for electrics, but there is always another battery
technology in a lab somewhere. Don't bet the farm or count them out.


So why dont they build steam cars?

1) Poor thermodynamic efficiency (Stanleys and Dobles could get away
with very low efficiencies, because IC engines at the time weren't
much better)

2) High cost

3) High maintenance


The last two would appear to be undocumented

Care to try again?

Nope. I'm sure that you could find out if you cared to. Do your
homework first.

Start by looking up high-efficiency steam engines. Note how complex
they become when you get above 25% or so thermodynamic efficiency. In
small sizes, like with an automobile, they are *extremely* difficult,
if not impossible. IC engine research now is working in the range of
40 - 43% thermodynamic efficiency. Steam would have to be close, which
it is not.

So this is a Hollywood special effects piece?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw6NFmcnW-8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrZJsvDy19I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N98mXwTsx5A

The fact that none of them are being built today should give you your
answer. They just can't cut it.

Steam is just not an answer, Gunner, no matter how much you may like
it.


Say...isnt the internal combustion engine somewhere around 28%
effecient?

Not the latest ones. We're headed for 40% as a typical number within a
few years. Some cars surpass it now.

--
Ed Huntress

nope we import the stuff directly from the slave labor of china

Utter nonsense. *The unemployment rate in E. China is less than 1%. If
workers don't want to show up for work, they don't. *If they're fired,
there's always another job. *Companies are moving because the labor
situation is so bad.

Average pay rate for chinese manufacturing worker 3 bucks a day
american.

The workers live in dorms attached to the plant, and by groceries from
company stores.....

the perfect company town

So fred I see you have followed me here to be your normal obnxious
self.

I have your phone number and will give you a call soon

wrote:

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:45:12 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


wrote:

The limp-wristed Brits won't even keep the Falklands for much longer.


Today's Brits wouldn't have lasted a day in W.W. II.

Who would want them?


No one. That's why they are on a tiny island. Like Alcatraz.

On Feb 27, 6:13*pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
harry wrote:

On Feb 27, 1:53 pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
Doug wrote:

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 05:16:38 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

Doug wrote:

Agreed. * I've read they will have filling stations for electric cars
too and I think they already have some as a prototype but I don't
recall where.

* At the current rate, it will take hundreds of years to convert to
electric vehicles.

Why?

* *Think about it. *The technology isn't there. *The power generation
isn't there. *It can take 25 years to get the permits to build & put one
power plant on line. *Viable electric vehicles have been "Just around
the corner" for 100 years. * Picture this: *Every car in town is
electric. *A massive power failure and after a few days most of them are
sitting on the road where the batteries died. *How long before people
start stealing the expensive batteries to replace their failed batteries
instead of paying the dealer full retail?

* *Study electronics for yourself, and do some heavy math. *You'll see
for yourself. *There is very little excess capacity in the grid, and the
nighttime usage allows them to take some generators or controls down for
minor repairs. *Without that, the whole facility is run till it needs a
major overhaul, which can take months or years. *The entire grid is
aging, and a lot of equipment is well past its design life. *Between the
MBAs, NIMBYs and Greenies, it's a looming crisis.

The grid will run more efficiently on a more constant load.
Why do you think smart meters are being installed?

Shutdowns for maintenance take weeks, not a few hours in any event.

* *How long have you had a degree in Electrical Engineering? *How long
have you worked in mission critical locations? *You PLAN the work before
you start. *You have everytinhg on hand so it doesn't take weeks. *Those
jobs aggregate, and are all done at once when simple repairs will no
longer keep a generator on line.

* Goodbye. *You have become quite boring with your ignorant trolling.

About forty years.
The maintenance work on steam plant and other large electricity
generating plant takes many days, sometimes weeks. It takes days for
steam plant to cool down before you even start.

On Feb 27, 7:19*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 23:45:09 -0800, George Plimpton
wrote:









On 2/26/2013 10:56 PM, harry wrote:
On Feb 26, 6:19 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/26/2013 9:58 AM, harry wrote:

On Feb 26, 5:23 pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
harry wrote:

On Feb 26, 12:15 am, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
Attila Iskander wrote:

But that comment again demonstrates how provincial harry's mindset is.
Obviously what works around him has to work just as well ALL OVER the world
It's a holdover from the times when Euros imagined they controlled and were
superior to the rest of the world

* * *Their egos have always outreached their grasp.

True more of the USA than Europe.

* * *The US has never started a world war, but you have two under your
belts. *Does: "The sun will never set on the British Empire!" ring any
bells in your tiny belfry? *How about your slave trade, where you limeys
brought slaves to your southern plantations, then left us to deal with
the problems when we kicked your syphilis infected carcasses out in that
little spat where a handful of farm boys kicked the **** out of "The
best army in the world"?

You don't know your history.

We do. *Brit historical revisionism is funny.

We were having a problem with the French.
When we sorted them out we came back and burned down the white house
and chase you across America.

The War of 1812, a minor conflict of the Napoleonic wars, was not a
victory for either side.

The US started a war with Japan. You cut off their oil resources.

The US did not start a war with Japan. *There's that silly Brit
revisionism again.

The US armed forces have never won a war since WW2.

Wrong. *The US prevailed militarily in Iraq twice, and in several minor
conflicts. *The Brits would have lost in the Falklands if not for the US.

Various forms of gooks beat them all round the world regardless of all
the technology.

The sun did set on the Brit empire, in no small part due to US.

And we have started many "world" wars, all against tyrants.

No Brit war ever was started to fight tyranny.

* I can see you're another uneducated Yank.

You're wrong again.

You have not won in Iraq (or Afghanistan.)

We won in Iraq. *Twice. *Not in rational dispute. *Afghanistan looks
bad, but it's not a military defeat; it's a political defeat. *The US
has never been militarily defeated. *We've gotten into some stupid wars
and lost politically, but never militarily. *Not so the Brits.

They have defeated you.

No.

The USA did not exist while we fought European tyrants.

You've never fought European tyrants to fight tyranny.

You lost your empire - pure and simple. *You didn't want to lose it, but
you did.

The limp-wristed Brits won't even keep the Falklands for much longer.

Don't see you in Panama or the Philipines. Be out of Hawaii soon I
expect.

On Feb 27, 8:03*pm, Gunner wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:43:56 -0800 (PST), harry

wrote:
major overhaul, which can take months or years. The entire grid is
aging, and a lot of equipment is well past its design life. Between the
MBAs, NIMBYs and Greenies, it's a looming crisis.

The grid will run more efficiently on a more constant load.
Why do you think smart meters are being installed?

So they dont have to spend money on meter readers and so they can
stick it in the peoples asses for Peak Billing

Only part of it.
So they can charge more for electricity at peak times. Lots more.
So inducing people not to use electricity at that time.

On Feb 27, 8:18*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:55:40 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"

wrote:
Tell me about your's since your Nazi war criminal died.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Von_Braun

* Do you ever pull your head out of your ass? *You better be worried
about North Korea, instead of 70 year old V2s.

Harry forgets Robert Goddard who pretty much pioneered the work Von
Braun perfected

Ignored in America.
The same****ferbrains/stuck in the past idiots as we have here.
You had to get the nazi in in the end.

On Feb 27, 8:54*pm, "Existential Angst" wrote:
"whoyakidding's ghost" wrote in message

...









On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 23:33:24 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Feb 26, 10:12 pm, "Existential Angst" wrote:
despite
the fact that there is 1/100 the mechanical complexity in an electric
than
in an ICE.

EVs are FAR more complex than an ICE car.
Hybrids even more so, you have two complete power systems inone car.

Yes but EA isn't interested in an actual EV. He thinks there could be
a cheap, full electric, long range, no computer, no airbags,
lightweight, roadworthy car that can also reduce his utility rate and
be so simple that even a proven mental midget could build it.

First, most of what you just said is lying bull****.
I already said the Volt design IS the right design.
It just should not be $45K.
And yeah, lightweight would help, 2 airbags would suffice, etc.

He COULD

try doing some basic research, perhaps starting by reading the manual
for an electric wheelchair controller. But it's easier to keep making
unsupportable claims. It's akin to a child thinking he can climb a
ladder to touch the sun. When the ladder doesn't reach he gets a
taller ladder.

Apparently neither of you have taken apart an ICE or a transmission.
When you do, post back.

Dudes: *Electric car = battery + motor....... *WTF part of battery+motor
don't you get??

Sure, you can MAKE **** as complicated as you want.... *dat dudn't mean it
actually has to BE that complicated.
YOU think so, because you can't tell up from down, but that dudn't make it
so.

The "complications" are necessary to get even the range from them we
have now.
The AC motor/generator is over 90% efficient (they claim) which is
some achievement,

On Feb 27, 10:57*pm, bob haller wrote:
On Feb 27, 12:22*pm, harry wrote:









On Feb 27, 1:35*pm, "
wrote:

On Feb 27, 2:52*am, harry wrote:

On Feb 27, 12:09*am, wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 20:45:43 -0500, wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:04:03 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 13:24:06 -0500, wrote:

The price of a Volt puts it totally out of the running. Car and Driver
ran the numbers and said the Cruze was a better deal.

Better deal? *Does that mean everybody should buy the one car that Car
and Driver says is a "better deal?"
+20,000 Volts were sold last year. *According to Forbes, the Volt "is
outselling about half of all cars marketed in the U.S."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimgorze...ust-chevrolet-...
So your "totally out of the running" is a personal opinion.

I agree the
government bribe may shade that a little but the real cost is just
being foisted off on the people who don't buy a Volt. If everyone
bought one, the rebate simply moves from your car payment to your tax
bill.

The all-electric Nissan Leaf gets more preference with government
incentives than the Volt.
And you probably meant to say "federal and state government bribes."
Many states are kicking in.
http://www.pluginamerica.org/incentives
I noticed a guy in the Volt forum said he got a $6k tax credit from
Colorado to add to the $7.5k from the fed.

So the poor are subsidizing the rich. That sounds right, at least the
way it works here. They also subsidize the people who can afford
$50,000 solar PV arrays.
I am surprised the big business republicans are not really pushing
this. *but maybe they are.

No, it's the big business Democrats who are really pushing this. *Wake
up.

Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor.
In America the rich have always stolen from the poor.
They import poor people for this purpose.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dumb as ever. *If by "importing poor people", you mean
Mexicans, they obviously come here because there is
far more opportunity to earn money here than there is
in Mexico. *They come because it makes their life better
for them and their families back in Mexico that they send
money they earn to. *They come because it's a step UP
on the economic ladder for them. *That is how free markets
work.

Then, just like the clueless libs, you assume everything
is static. *That whoever had a low income in 1980, 1990,
2000 still has a low income today. * That of course isn't
true. *People start out at a low paying job and then work
their way up to a better job. *Or start a business. *That is how
it works, at least for those that want to get off their ass. *I just
had two painters over here to give me quotes on painting
a great room and a foyer, *$3,600 - $4,000. *Are you gonna
tell us that skill set is beyond the reach of the common
person? *I could do that job myself in a week. *Do the math
at what income that works out to.

The US economy has always relies on cheap labour.
First it was slaves. *Who had no say in the matter.

Then it was sweatshops for deluded immigrants.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_shop

Now it's Mexicans. *They come because the USA has destroyed their
economy.

nope we import the stuff directly from the slave labor of china

And export the jobs.........

On Feb 28, 12:45*am, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
wrote:

The limp-wristed Brits won't even keep the Falklands for much longer.

* Today's Brits wouldn't have lasted a day in W.W. II.

Today's Yanks get whipped by any gook anywhere.

They now get schoolboy videogame nuts to do all their killing.
I hear they are giving out medals now for killing someone by remote
control on the other side of the world. Heh Heh.
Does working the joystick on the video game strengthen limp wrists?

On Feb 28, 12:50*am, "Jim Wilkins" wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message

...



Dobles were the most advanced steam cars of all time. In the late
'20s, whcn a Ford cost $260, a Doble cost $10,000 or more.

Steam technology on a small scale hasn't progressed very much since.
The Doble was a work of genius and very advanced. Turbines are out
for
cars. You need positive-displacement engines, like IC piston
engines.
Workable steam engines are complex; boilers are maintenance
headaches;
and so on.

Ed Huntress

Development work on small steam turbines at Doble led to an American
jet engine proposal contemporary with the British, German and Italian
efforts, but not as well supported:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_J37


Tch.
That was a 19th century British invention. Long before Doble.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Algernon_Parsons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_turbine

On Feb 27, 11:48*pm, harry wrote:
On Feb 28, 12:45*am, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

wrote:

The limp-wristed Brits won't even keep the Falklands for much longer.

* Today's Brits wouldn't have lasted a day in W.W. II.

Today's Yanks get whipped by any gook anywhere.

They now get schoolboy videogame nuts to do all their killing.
I hear they are giving out medals now for killing someone by remote
control on the other side of the world. *Heh Heh.
Does working the joystick on the video game strengthen limp wrists?

Have the English learned to make rubber yet? I have had quite a few
Jaguars and the English rubber was always a problem. So was the output
of both the V6 and the V12. Best thing to do with an XJ6 or an XJS is
yank out the worthless, piece of **** Jaguar engine and install a
Chevy motor. For sure I think David Vizard would agree with this.

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 22:28:25 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 2/27/2013 8:16 PM, Gunner wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:44:14 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:38:34 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Ed Huntress wrote:


If you have CNG fueling stations around, though, you're lucky. If
there are any here, I don't know about them. There's one in Newark
(don't go there on purpose, please...) and another on Staten Island.
(only about 10 miles, but the toll is $12 cash, one-way. No thanks.)


FWIW, Flying J and Pilot are rolling out CNG fueling stations to cater
long haul truckers. If this works, then it might be a catalyst for more.

That would be a good step.

I have read, without being able to evaluate it myself, that setting up
CNG fueling stations is fairly easy. Compressors must be powerful,
though, to get that pipeline gas up to transportation-fuel pressures
at high speed.

Does CNG work in a diesel engine? Or does it require spark plugs?

Gunner


Check out this page on diesel engines running on NG. ^_^

http://www.wartsila.com/en/media/Art...-the-caribbean

"With the need to replace an old 6 MW diesel engine operating on HFO,
the company decided to go for a Wärtsilä dual-fuel engine 32 DF, with
an output of 6 MW, that would run on 99% natural gas and 1% light fuel
oil."

http://tinyurl.com/cwwsd24

TDD

The methodology of the left has always been:

1. Lie
2. Repeat the lie as many times as possible
3. Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
4. Eventually, the uninformed believe the lie
5. The lie will then be made into some form oflaw
6. Then everyone must conform to the lie

On Feb 27, 9:44*pm, "Existential Angst" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Feb 27, 3:54 pm, "Existential Angst" wrote:





"whoyakidding's ghost" wrote in message

.. .

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 23:33:24 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Feb 26, 10:12 pm, "Existential Angst" wrote:
despite
the fact that there is 1/100 the mechanical complexity in an electric
than
in an ICE.

EVs are FAR more complex than an ICE car.
Hybrids even more so, you have two complete power systems inone car.

Yes but EA isn't interested in an actual EV. He thinks there could be
a cheap, full electric, long range, no computer, no airbags,
lightweight, roadworthy car that can also reduce his utility rate and
be so simple that even a proven mental midget could build it.

First, most of what you just said is lying bull****.
I already said the Volt design IS the right design.
It just should not be $45K.
And yeah, lightweight would help, 2 airbags would suffice, etc.

He COULD

try doing some basic research, perhaps starting by reading the manual
for an electric wheelchair controller. But it's easier to keep making
unsupportable claims. It's akin to a child thinking he can climb a
ladder to touch the sun. When the ladder doesn't reach he gets a
taller ladder.

Apparently neither of you have taken apart an ICE or a transmission.
When you do, post back.

Dudes: Electric car = battery + motor....... WTF part of battery+motor
don't you get??

It's you who doesn't get it. * You keep claiming that building
an electric car is trivial. *All the world's auto manufacturers,
who actually are doing it, don't seem to think so.
For example, what part of a big honking battery suitable to power a
car being, large, heavy and expensive, don't you get? *Yeah, it's
just a battery, but so far no one knows how to make one that
stores a lot of energy and is cheap. *That includes not only the
auto makers, but all the battery makers out there.

Also, to try to get mileage that is barely acceptable
requires more than a simple motor and battery. *Regenerative
braking technology being an example. *If you don't recover
that energy, then the car isn't going to go nearly as far.
And then folks have this funny thing about thinking that a
car should have A/C, heat, stereo, etc, basicly the standard feature
set
that you'd find in similar cars today. *And for cars that cost $45K,
that's a lot of stuff. *No one is going to buy a stripped down,
barebones car at even 25K, let alone that price. *Then there
are the govt mandates, like airbags, crash resistant bumpers, etc.
================================================== ==

Correck me if ahm wrong, but you get alladat in a Nissan Versa for what,
$12K???

Seems to me swapping out an IC engine, transmission, starter, efi, etc etc
etc, for a fukn electric motor and a few batteries would be more than an
even trade, eh?

Why? Just because you say so? The free market prices around the
world
for actually doing it, particularly for key items like that battery,
say you're wrong.
Either all the same manufacturers that are churning out other cars at
competitive prices are in on some grand conspiracy, or, as usual,
you're
just talking about things you don't understand.


*Oh, yeah, and regenerative braking, of course. *Which
certain types of motors do by themselves, btw, when slowing down.

Not saying people shouldn't be paid for new designs, but ferchrissakes,
nearly FOUR times the Versa price??

First you made an ass of yourself with your dumb assertions
about the cost per mile to charge an electric car versus gas.
Crap you just made up, instead of taking 5 mins to find out the
facts, which are widely available for many sources that HAVE
ACTUALLY TESTED THE CARS. Now you've
switched to this nonsense. You have no expertise in battery
technology, cost, or apparently much of anything else.



Funny, no one was complaining about how unsafe the 1974 beetle was.... *I
suspect they just drove better back then.

The world has changed since then. The 1974 beetle would
not meet federal crash resistant bumper standards, air bag
standards, etc. As have customer expectations for what
they want in a car today.




How bout a gummint mandate for crawling helmets for toddlers?
Are you wearing yours, Trader?? *LOLhttp://www.wowt.com/news/headlines/147384965.html
--
EA


I suspect at some point you didn't wear a helmet. It's one
explanation of why you keep making a complete ass of yourself.
You see anyone here agreeing with you?

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Feb 28, 12:50 am, "Jim Wilkins" wrote:

Development work on small steam turbines at Doble led to an American
jet engine proposal contemporary with the British, German and
Italian
efforts, but not as well
supported:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_J37

-That was a 19th century British invention. Long before Doble.
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Algernon_Parsons
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_turbine

It's a freakin windmill that the ancient Greeks had. The modern idea
was French:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Burdin

http://www.hydroroues.fr/histoturb.htm
"Le terme même de turbine avait été créé par l'ingénieur des mines
Burdin, professeur à l' École de Saint-Étienne."
in 1822

On 2/26/2013 5:16 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Tom Gardner wrote:

On 2/25/2013 11:43 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Tom Gardner wrote:

On 2/25/2013 7:37 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Tom Gardner wrote:

Has anybody mentioned that "Road Tax" *will* be levied on electricity
for cars? How soon is a guess.

SSHHH!!!!!!!!!! That was supposed to be a surprise when they renew
their tags & have to pay a $5,000 road tax.

There are some pilot programs currently going on in the US where states
are putting GPS on to cars that phones home every once in awhile to see
if it is possible to change road taxes to a miles driven type of thing.
Good luck getting that instituted.


Most people don't beleve that I drive less than 3,000 miles a year.


They don't count teleporting.


You better behave! I'll soon have the range up to 1500 miles, and
I'll pop up there to smack you!


Come for dinner! Bring wine.


Next you'll want to borrow the teleporter to save on your shipping
costs.


Duhh!

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:54:11 -0500, "Existential Angst"
wrote:

"whoyakidding's ghost" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 23:33:24 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Feb 26, 10:12 pm, "Existential Angst" wrote:
despite
the fact that there is 1/100 the mechanical complexity in an electric
than
in an ICE.

EVs are FAR more complex than an ICE car.
Hybrids even more so, you have two complete power systems inone car.

Yes but EA isn't interested in an actual EV. He thinks there could be
a cheap, full electric, long range, no computer, no airbags,
lightweight, roadworthy car that can also reduce his utility rate and
be so simple that even a proven mental midget could build it.

First, most of what you just said is lying bull****.
I already said the Volt design IS the right design.

NO! You said it's too heavy, has unnecessary computers and airbags,
takes too long to charge, doesn't get good enough mileage for you, the
electricity to power it costs you too much, it can't carry lathes or
cement pallets, lacks hub motors.... **** what's the point of going
on? It probably comes in the wrong colors.

It just should not be $45K.

I KNOW! They should sell it at an even bigger loss, so that you can
write that it's still too much and should be free unless it's
delivered in 30 minutes.

And yeah, lightweight would help, 2 airbags would suffice, etc.

Hell yeah! The cars, the car companies, society, the government, the
healthcare system, the education system, the highway safety
infrastructure, the energy industry (sorry if I missed any rants
there) ALL need to be redesigned by a crackpot. Once we rip the
overweight transaxle out of our '74 Beetles, and replace it with a
long range battery and an electric motor to create the ultimate 2000
lb car, we can rule the world! Heil Angst!

If the gummint were serious about going green, the Volt subsidy should have
the car net out to no more than $20K.
It would then FLY off the shelves, and eventually support itself

Aha! And there we have it. You'll buy an EV if somebody pays it down
to the level of a Cruze. Except... no you won't!

"whoyakidding's ghost" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:54:11 -0500, "Existential Angst"
wrote:

"whoyakidding's ghost" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 23:33:24 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Feb 26, 10:12 pm, "Existential Angst" wrote:
despite
the fact that there is 1/100 the mechanical complexity in an electric
than
in an ICE.

EVs are FAR more complex than an ICE car.
Hybrids even more so, you have two complete power systems inone car.

Yes but EA isn't interested in an actual EV. He thinks there could be
a cheap, full electric, long range, no computer, no airbags,
lightweight, roadworthy car that can also reduce his utility rate and
be so simple that even a proven mental midget could build it.

First, most of what you just said is lying bull****.
I already said the Volt design IS the right design.

NO! You said it's too heavy, has unnecessary computers and airbags,
takes too long to charge, doesn't get good enough mileage for you, the
electricity to power it costs you too much, it can't carry lathes or
cement pallets, lacks hub motors.... **** what's the point of going
on? It probably comes in the wrong colors.

Black is the only dignified color for a car.
All other colors are for housewives and Homeyz....

And of course you are a lying sack of ****.


It just should not be $45K.

I KNOW! They should sell it at an even bigger loss, so that you can
write that it's still too much and should be free unless it's
delivered in 30 minutes.

And yeah, lightweight would help, 2 airbags would suffice, etc.

Hell yeah! The cars, the car companies, society, the government, the
healthcare system, the education system, the highway safety
infrastructure, the energy industry (sorry if I missed any rants
there) ALL need to be redesigned by a crackpot. Once we rip the
overweight transaxle out of our '74 Beetles, and replace it with a
long range battery and an electric motor to create the ultimate 2000
lb car, we can rule the world! Heil Angst!

Yup.
But of course, you missed the much bigger point.


If the gummint were serious about going green, the Volt subsidy should
have
the car net out to no more than $20K.
It would then FLY off the shelves, and eventually support itself

Aha! And there we have it. You'll buy an EV if somebody pays it down
to the level of a Cruze. Except... no you won't!

And YOU..... are calling ME...... a crackpot??
Holy ****.....

If the Honder Fit goes kaput, my next car proly won't be a Volt, much as I'd
like, it'll proly be a Pruis c.
Or, if I can sleuth out more about those 136 mpg Insights, I'd finagle one
of those.

But, Kidding, no kidding, yer good, you can twist ANYTHING into
non-recognition, and you can do it with some amount of style. Props to
you....

I'd keep an eye on the wife tho, cuz I have an idea your style wears thin
after a while -- esp with all the disingenuous twisting, conniving, and,
well, just plain ole lying. Keep on eye on your landscaper, as well.
--
EA

On 2/27/2013 11:26 PM, harry wrote:
On Feb 27, 7:19 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 23:45:09 -0800, George Plimpton
wrote:









On 2/26/2013 10:56 PM, harry wrote:
On Feb 26, 6:19 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/26/2013 9:58 AM, harry wrote:

On Feb 26, 5:23 pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
harry wrote:

On Feb 26, 12:15 am, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
Attila Iskander wrote:

But that comment again demonstrates how provincial harry's mindset is.
Obviously what works around him has to work just as well ALL OVER the world
It's a holdover from the times when Euros imagined they controlled and were
superior to the rest of the world

Their egos have always outreached their grasp.

True more of the USA than Europe.

The US has never started a world war, but you have two under your
belts. Does: "The sun will never set on the British Empire!" ring any
bells in your tiny belfry? How about your slave trade, where you limeys
brought slaves to your southern plantations, then left us to deal with
the problems when we kicked your syphilis infected carcasses out in that
little spat where a handful of farm boys kicked the **** out of "The
best army in the world"?

You don't know your history.

We do. Brit historical revisionism is funny.

We were having a problem with the French.
When we sorted them out we came back and burned down the white house
and chase you across America.

The War of 1812, a minor conflict of the Napoleonic wars, was not a
victory for either side.

The US started a war with Japan. You cut off their oil resources.

The US did not start a war with Japan. There's that silly Brit
revisionism again.

The US armed forces have never won a war since WW2.

Wrong. The US prevailed militarily in Iraq twice, and in several minor
conflicts. The Brits would have lost in the Falklands if not for the US.

Various forms of gooks beat them all round the world regardless of all
the technology.

The sun did set on the Brit empire, in no small part due to US.

And we have started many "world" wars, all against tyrants.

No Brit war ever was started to fight tyranny.

I can see you're another uneducated Yank.

You're wrong again.

You have not won in Iraq (or Afghanistan.)

We won in Iraq. Twice. Not in rational dispute. Afghanistan looks
bad, but it's not a military defeat; it's a political defeat. The US
has never been militarily defeated. We've gotten into some stupid wars
and lost politically, but never militarily. Not so the Brits.

They have defeated you.

No.

The USA did not exist while we fought European tyrants.

You've never fought European tyrants to fight tyranny.

You lost your empire - pure and simple. You didn't want to lose it, but
you did.

The limp-wristed Brits won't even keep the Falklands for much longer.

Don't see you in Panama or the Philipines.

Correct, because unlike racist Brits, the US believes in
self-determination. Basically, you lost the remnants of your colonial
empire after the second world war because we made you give them up. The
nail was all but driven into the coffin when we forced your pasty doughy
asses out of Suez in 1956. Wikipedia gives one of the results of that
Brit debacle as "End of Britain's role as a Superpower."

If you weren't such wretched ingrates, you'd understand that it was an
act of American benevolence toward the UK.


Be out of Hawaii soon I expect.

Not a chance. Hawaiians are Americans and like it.

You'd be on very slightly stronger footing if you said we'd be out of
Guam or the Northern Mariana Islands or the US Virgin Islands, but not
very much stronger, as there is no pressure on the US to abandon those.
Puerto Rico is always a little up in the air, but of the three main
positions among Puerto Ricans - becoming a US state, independence, or
maintaining the status quo - independence is a decidedly minority position.

Yes, I expect there will be another push to force the UK to relinquish
the Falklands, and the next time it will probably succeed.

On Feb 28, 7:34*am, whoyakidding's ghost
wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:54:11 -0500, "Existential Angst"









wrote:
"whoyakidding's ghost" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 23:33:24 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Feb 26, 10:12 pm, "Existential Angst" wrote:
despite
the fact that there is 1/100 the mechanical complexity in an electric
than
in an ICE.

EVs are FAR more complex than an ICE car.
Hybrids even more so, you have two complete power systems inone car.

Yes but EA isn't interested in an actual EV. He thinks there could be
a cheap, full electric, long range, no computer, no airbags,
lightweight, roadworthy car that can also reduce his utility rate and
be so simple that even a proven mental midget could build it.

First, most of what you just said is lying bull****.
I already said the Volt design IS the right design.

NO! You said it's too heavy, has unnecessary computers and airbags,
takes too long to charge, doesn't get good enough mileage for you, the
electricity to power it costs you too much, it can't carry lathes or
cement pallets, lacks hub motors.... **** what's the point of going
on? It probably comes in the wrong colors.

It just should not be $45K.

I KNOW! They should sell it at an even bigger loss, so that you can
write that it's still too much and should be free unless it's
delivered in 30 minutes.

And yeah, lightweight would help, 2 airbags would suffice, etc.

Hell yeah! The cars, the car companies, society, the government, the
healthcare system, the education system, the highway safety
infrastructure, the energy industry (sorry if I missed any rants
there) ALL need to be redesigned by a crackpot. Once we rip the
overweight transaxle out of our '74 Beetles, and replace it with a
long range battery and an electric motor to create the ultimate 2000
lb car, we can rule the world! Heil Angst!

If the gummint were serious about going green, the Volt subsidy should have
the car net out to no more than $20K.
It would then FLY off the shelves, and eventually support itself

Aha! And there we have it. You'll buy an EV if somebody pays it down
to the level of a Cruze. Except... no you won't!

"NO! You said it's too heavy,"

It is too heavy. It's designed to look like a conventional car to
appeal to buyers and that's what makes it too heavy.

On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 11:58:32 -0500, "Existential Angst"
wrote:


I'd keep an eye on the wife tho, cuz I have an idea your style wears thin
after a while -- esp with all the disingenuous twisting, conniving, and,
well, just plain ole lying. Keep on eye on your landscaper, as well.

Celebrated our 30th anniversary about a week ago. Lived in sin for
some years prior to wedding. I rank your warnings right up there with
the cull because they're based on the exact same thing - retarded
wishful thinking.

Tom Gardner wrote:

On 2/26/2013 5:16 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Tom Gardner wrote:

On 2/25/2013 11:43 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Tom Gardner wrote:

On 2/25/2013 7:37 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

Tom Gardner wrote:

Has anybody mentioned that "Road Tax" *will* be levied on electricity
for cars? How soon is a guess.

SSHHH!!!!!!!!!! That was supposed to be a surprise when they renew
their tags & have to pay a $5,000 road tax.

There are some pilot programs currently going on in the US where states
are putting GPS on to cars that phones home every once in awhile to see
if it is possible to change road taxes to a miles driven type of thing.
Good luck getting that instituted.


Most people don't beleve that I drive less than 3,000 miles a year.


They don't count teleporting.


You better behave! I'll soon have the range up to 1500 miles, and
I'll pop up there to smack you!


Come for dinner! Bring wine.


Next you'll want to borrow the teleporter to save on your shipping
costs.


Duhh!


And you want to ship a free kitten, with every large order.

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 21:06:38 -0800 (PST), bob haller
wrote:


nope we import the stuff directly from the slave labor of china

Utter nonsense. *The unemployment rate in E. China is less than 1%. If
workers don't want to show up for work, they don't. *If they're fired,
there's always another job. *Companies are moving because the labor
situation is so bad.

Average pay rate for chinese manufacturing worker 3 bucks a day
american.

Absolutely irrelevant.

The workers live in dorms attached to the plant, and by groceries from
company stores.....

Absolutely irrelevant (and nonsense).

the perfect company town

So fred I see you have followed me here to be your normal obnxious
self.

"fred"? Not only are you stupid but you're illiterate.

I have your phone number and will give you a call soon

You're an idiot but please call anytime.

It's really a shame you *never* know what you're talking about. You
must be a lefty.

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 23:56:29 -0800 (PST), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Feb 27, 11:48*pm, harry wrote:
On Feb 28, 12:45*am, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

wrote:

The limp-wristed Brits won't even keep the Falklands for much longer.

* Today's Brits wouldn't have lasted a day in W.W. II.

Today's Yanks get whipped by any gook anywhere.

They now get schoolboy videogame nuts to do all their killing.
I hear they are giving out medals now for killing someone by remote
control on the other side of the world. *Heh Heh.
Does working the joystick on the video game strengthen limp wrists?

Have the English learned to make rubber yet?

Of course not. That's the entire reason harry was born.

I have had quite a few
Jaguars and the English rubber was always a problem. So was the output
of both the V6 and the V12. Best thing to do with an XJ6 or an XJS is
yank out the worthless, piece of **** Jaguar engine and install a
Chevy motor. For sure I think David Vizard would agree with this.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Feb 27, 8:54 pm, "Existential Angst" wrote:
"whoyakidding's ghost" wrote in message

...









On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 23:33:24 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Feb 26, 10:12 pm, "Existential Angst" wrote:
despite
the fact that there is 1/100 the mechanical complexity in an electric
than
in an ICE.

EVs are FAR more complex than an ICE car.
Hybrids even more so, you have two complete power systems inone car.

Yes but EA isn't interested in an actual EV. He thinks there could be
a cheap, full electric, long range, no computer, no airbags,
lightweight, roadworthy car that can also reduce his utility rate and
be so simple that even a proven mental midget could build it.

First, most of what you just said is lying bull****.
I already said the Volt design IS the right design.
It just should not be $45K.
And yeah, lightweight would help, 2 airbags would suffice, etc.

He COULD

try doing some basic research, perhaps starting by reading the manual
for an electric wheelchair controller. But it's easier to keep making
unsupportable claims. It's akin to a child thinking he can climb a
ladder to touch the sun. When the ladder doesn't reach he gets a
taller ladder.

Apparently neither of you have taken apart an ICE or a transmission.
When you do, post back.

Dudes: Electric car = battery + motor....... WTF part of battery+motor
don't you get??

Sure, you can MAKE **** as complicated as you want.... dat dudn't mean it
actually has to BE that complicated.
YOU think so, because you can't tell up from down, but that dudn't make it
so.

The "complications" are necessary to get even the range from them we
have now.
The AC motor/generator is over 90% efficient (they claim) which is
some achievement,
================================================== ======

fyi, Baldor (et al) has been making 98%+ efficient motors for years.
--
EA

On Feb 28, 12:32*pm, "
wrote:
On Feb 27, 9:44*pm, "Existential Angst" wrote:









wrote in message

...
On Feb 27, 3:54 pm, "Existential Angst" wrote:

"whoyakidding's ghost" wrote in message

.. .

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 23:33:24 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Feb 26, 10:12 pm, "Existential Angst" wrote:
despite
the fact that there is 1/100 the mechanical complexity in an electric
than
in an ICE.

EVs are FAR more complex than an ICE car.
Hybrids even more so, you have two complete power systems inone car..

Yes but EA isn't interested in an actual EV. He thinks there could be
a cheap, full electric, long range, no computer, no airbags,
lightweight, roadworthy car that can also reduce his utility rate and
be so simple that even a proven mental midget could build it.

First, most of what you just said is lying bull****.
I already said the Volt design IS the right design.
It just should not be $45K.
And yeah, lightweight would help, 2 airbags would suffice, etc.

He COULD

try doing some basic research, perhaps starting by reading the manual
for an electric wheelchair controller. But it's easier to keep making
unsupportable claims. It's akin to a child thinking he can climb a
ladder to touch the sun. When the ladder doesn't reach he gets a
taller ladder.

Apparently neither of you have taken apart an ICE or a transmission.
When you do, post back.

Dudes: Electric car = battery + motor....... WTF part of battery+motor
don't you get??

It's you who doesn't get it. * You keep claiming that building
an electric car is trivial. *All the world's auto manufacturers,
who actually are doing it, don't seem to think so.
For example, what part of a big honking battery suitable to power a
car being, large, heavy and expensive, don't you get? *Yeah, it's
just a battery, but so far no one knows how to make one that
stores a lot of energy and is cheap. *That includes not only the
auto makers, but all the battery makers out there.

Also, to try to get mileage that is barely acceptable
requires more than a simple motor and battery. *Regenerative
braking technology being an example. *If you don't recover
that energy, then the car isn't going to go nearly as far.
And then folks have this funny thing about thinking that a
car should have A/C, heat, stereo, etc, basicly the standard feature
set
that you'd find in similar cars today. *And for cars that cost $45K,
that's a lot of stuff. *No one is going to buy a stripped down,
barebones car at even 25K, let alone that price. *Then there
are the govt mandates, like airbags, crash resistant bumpers, etc.
================================================== ==

Correck me if ahm wrong, but you get alladat in a Nissan Versa for what,
$12K???

Seems to me swapping out an IC engine, transmission, starter, efi, etc etc
etc, for a fukn electric motor and a few batteries would be more than an
even trade, eh?

Why? *Just because you say so? * The free market prices around the
world
for actually doing it, particularly for key items like that battery,
say you're wrong.
Either all the same manufacturers that are churning out other cars at
competitive prices are in on some grand conspiracy, or, as usual,
you're
just talking about things you don't understand.

**Oh, yeah, and regenerative braking, of course. *Which

certain types of motors do by themselves, btw, when slowing down.

Not saying people shouldn't be paid for new designs, but ferchrissakes,
nearly FOUR times the Versa price??

First you made an ass of yourself with your dumb assertions
about the cost per mile to charge an electric car versus gas.
Crap you just made up, instead of taking 5 mins to find out the
facts, which are widely available for many sources that HAVE
ACTUALLY TESTED THE CARS. * Now you've
switched to this nonsense. *You have no expertise in battery
technology, cost, or apparently much of anything else.



Funny, no one was complaining about how unsafe the 1974 beetle was.... *I
suspect they just drove better back then.

The world has changed since then. *The 1974 beetle would
not meet federal crash resistant bumper standards, air bag
standards, etc. As have customer expectations for what
they want in a car today.



How bout a gummint mandate for crawling helmets for toddlers?
Are you wearing yours, Trader?? *LOLhttp://www.wowt.com/news/headlines/147384965.html
--
EA

I suspect at some point you didn't wear a helmet. *It's one
explanation of why you keep making a complete ass of yourself.
You see anyone here agreeing with you?

My electric car uses around 0.2Kwh per mile depending on terrain.
So you can work out the cost depending on your local electricity price.

On Feb 28, 1:20*pm, "Jim Wilkins" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...
On Feb 28, 12:50 am, "Jim Wilkins" wrote:



Development work on small steam turbines at Doble led to an American
jet engine proposal contemporary with the British, German and
Italian
efforts, but not as well
supported:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_J37

-That was a 19th century British invention. Long before Doble.
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Algernon_Parsons
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_turbine

It's a freakin windmill that the ancient Greeks had. The modern idea
was French:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Burdin

http://www.hydroroues.fr/histoturb.htm
"Le terme m me de turbine avait t cr par l'ing nieur des mines
Burdin, professeur l' cole de Saint- tienne."
in 1822

The subject was steam turbines. Which were invented in the UK. Nor
water wheels/turbines.

On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 09:01:21 -0800, George Plimpton
wrote:

On 2/27/2013 11:26 PM, harry wrote:
On Feb 27, 7:19 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 23:45:09 -0800, George Plimpton
wrote:









On 2/26/2013 10:56 PM, harry wrote:
On Feb 26, 6:19 pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/26/2013 9:58 AM, harry wrote:

On Feb 26, 5:23 pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
harry wrote:

On Feb 26, 12:15 am, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
Attila Iskander wrote:

But that comment again demonstrates how provincial harry's mindset is.
Obviously what works around him has to work just as well ALL OVER the world
It's a holdover from the times when Euros imagined they controlled and were
superior to the rest of the world

Their egos have always outreached their grasp.

True more of the USA than Europe.

The US has never started a world war, but you have two under your
belts. Does: "The sun will never set on the British Empire!" ring any
bells in your tiny belfry? How about your slave trade, where you limeys
brought slaves to your southern plantations, then left us to deal with
the problems when we kicked your syphilis infected carcasses out in that
little spat where a handful of farm boys kicked the **** out of "The
best army in the world"?

You don't know your history.

We do. Brit historical revisionism is funny.

We were having a problem with the French.
When we sorted them out we came back and burned down the white house
and chase you across America.

The War of 1812, a minor conflict of the Napoleonic wars, was not a
victory for either side.

The US started a war with Japan. You cut off their oil resources.

The US did not start a war with Japan. There's that silly Brit
revisionism again.

The US armed forces have never won a war since WW2.

Wrong. The US prevailed militarily in Iraq twice, and in several minor
conflicts. The Brits would have lost in the Falklands if not for the US.

Various forms of gooks beat them all round the world regardless of all
the technology.

The sun did set on the Brit empire, in no small part due to US.

And we have started many "world" wars, all against tyrants.

No Brit war ever was started to fight tyranny.

I can see you're another uneducated Yank.

You're wrong again.

You have not won in Iraq (or Afghanistan.)

We won in Iraq. Twice. Not in rational dispute. Afghanistan looks
bad, but it's not a military defeat; it's a political defeat. The US
has never been militarily defeated. We've gotten into some stupid wars
and lost politically, but never militarily. Not so the Brits.

They have defeated you.

No.

The USA did not exist while we fought European tyrants.

You've never fought European tyrants to fight tyranny.

You lost your empire - pure and simple. You didn't want to lose it, but
you did.

The limp-wristed Brits won't even keep the Falklands for much longer.

Don't see you in Panama or the Philipines.

Correct, because unlike racist Brits, the US believes in
self-determination. Basically, you lost the remnants of your colonial
empire after the second world war because we made you give them up. The
nail was all but driven into the coffin when we forced your pasty doughy
asses out of Suez in 1956. Wikipedia gives one of the results of that
Brit debacle as "End of Britain's role as a Superpower."

If you weren't such wretched ingrates, you'd understand that it was an
act of American benevolence toward the UK.

Especially after the ingrates burned down our White House. I still
haven't forgiven them for that. g

--
Ed Huntress



Be out of Hawaii soon I expect.

Not a chance. Hawaiians are Americans and like it.

You'd be on very slightly stronger footing if you said we'd be out of
Guam or the Northern Mariana Islands or the US Virgin Islands, but not
very much stronger, as there is no pressure on the US to abandon those.
Puerto Rico is always a little up in the air, but of the three main
positions among Puerto Ricans - becoming a US state, independence, or
maintaining the status quo - independence is a decidedly minority position.

Yes, I expect there will be another push to force the UK to relinquish
the Falklands, and the next time it will probably succeed.

On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 11:58:32 -0500, "Existential Angst"
wrote:

"whoyakidding's ghost" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:54:11 -0500, "Existential Angst"
wrote:

"whoyakidding's ghost" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 23:33:24 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Feb 26, 10:12 pm, "Existential Angst" wrote:
despite
the fact that there is 1/100 the mechanical complexity in an electric
than
in an ICE.

EVs are FAR more complex than an ICE car.
Hybrids even more so, you have two complete power systems inone car.

Yes but EA isn't interested in an actual EV. He thinks there could be
a cheap, full electric, long range, no computer, no airbags,
lightweight, roadworthy car that can also reduce his utility rate and
be so simple that even a proven mental midget could build it.

First, most of what you just said is lying bull****.
I already said the Volt design IS the right design.

NO! You said it's too heavy, has unnecessary computers and airbags,
takes too long to charge, doesn't get good enough mileage for you, the
electricity to power it costs you too much, it can't carry lathes or
cement pallets, lacks hub motors.... **** what's the point of going
on? It probably comes in the wrong colors.

Black is the only dignified color for a car.
All other colors are for housewives and Homeyz....

As Big Daddy Roth used to say, "if you have a really good body, paint
it black. Otherwise, paint it something else." Or George Barris: "If
in doubt, paint it black"

--
Ed Huntress



And of course you are a lying sack of ****.


It just should not be $45K.

I KNOW! They should sell it at an even bigger loss, so that you can
write that it's still too much and should be free unless it's
delivered in 30 minutes.

And yeah, lightweight would help, 2 airbags would suffice, etc.

Hell yeah! The cars, the car companies, society, the government, the
healthcare system, the education system, the highway safety
infrastructure, the energy industry (sorry if I missed any rants
there) ALL need to be redesigned by a crackpot. Once we rip the
overweight transaxle out of our '74 Beetles, and replace it with a
long range battery and an electric motor to create the ultimate 2000
lb car, we can rule the world! Heil Angst!

Yup.
But of course, you missed the much bigger point.


If the gummint were serious about going green, the Volt subsidy should
have
the car net out to no more than $20K.
It would then FLY off the shelves, and eventually support itself

Aha! And there we have it. You'll buy an EV if somebody pays it down
to the level of a Cruze. Except... no you won't!

And YOU..... are calling ME...... a crackpot??
Holy ****.....

If the Honder Fit goes kaput, my next car proly won't be a Volt, much as I'd
like, it'll proly be a Pruis c.
Or, if I can sleuth out more about those 136 mpg Insights, I'd finagle one
of those.

But, Kidding, no kidding, yer good, you can twist ANYTHING into
non-recognition, and you can do it with some amount of style. Props to
you....

I'd keep an eye on the wife tho, cuz I have an idea your style wears thin
after a while -- esp with all the disingenuous twisting, conniving, and,
well, just plain ole lying. Keep on eye on your landscaper, as well.