Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Those figures are very poor - but it is a design dating from the '60s
and far too heavy with poor CD so the only way to get decent
performance was with vastly powerful engines.

No, its just an utterly over engined car - 4 liter superharged with an
auto box.

Design from the 90's actually :-)

It is still the basic XJ6 from the '60s. Later Jags are a great step
forward with lightweight construction involving ally body parts.

No. its lost a few things since then.apart from two doors ...the engine
is different, the gearbox and diff are different..the whole thing is
electrnically controlled..

And supercharging is simply a brute force way to power - it always results
in worse consumption than an equivalent normally aspirated engine.

Not quite true, a supercharged small engine MAY have less frictional
losses than a normally aspirated bigger one of the same power, and also
weigh less.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Todays fat soft tyres and larger than needed engines (makes for more
frictional losses at lower power) are very much against the economy.

Under about 55mph the CD makes very little odds.

Leccy cars will score because they can be optimised for whatever driving
speed you choose, efficiency wise. They use nothing apart from cooling
fans when stationary, and instantaneous fuel consumption is as simple to
display as a ammeter in the dashboard

If they decide not to fit vast tyres etc. And of course you don't need too
much heating or cooling which comes nearly free on an IC engine.


Heating comes free. Cooling emphatically does not.

A fairly well insulated electric car could in principle use the few
hundred watts of waste heat to keep it warm. Cooling takes power
whatever you do.


Trouble is luxury cars like this are bought by people who don't care about
fuel consumption - and are unlikely to buy an electric car unless it
matches it in all ways. So sumptuous (and heavy) interior, lots of sound
proofing including double glazing to keep extraneous noise out. 5 kW
heating and equivalent air-con so you don't have to wait for them to take
effect. Etc etc. All of which will not help the range of a battery car.


Agreed. So expect more attention to be paid to things like insulation,
darkened glass, and double glazing.

Also, if lighter car BODIES are made, the need for excessivley large
tyres for grip falls away. There are gains to be made on *all* cars by
reducing weight..

John Rumm wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:

Toshiba have announced a battery that can take 80% of the charge in 3
mins, full in 5. Tesla are looking to the new batteries that will
emerge in nest few years.

That only solves a part of the problem. You then need a recharging point
that can deliver the 100s or 1000's of amps required to take advantage
of the fast charge rate.


to recharge a 50KWh battery in say 5 minutes takes 600Kw. 2400A. at 250v.

Not impossible, but not trivial either.

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 11:56:12 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

Sad isn't it. There is not much that can done about him, it was the way he
was brought up.

Try providing some proof that a vehicle at rest is 100% efficient.

It will involve mathematics, so I'm willing to take a break from yoru
drivel while you go back to school.

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 11:57:13 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

Sad isn't it. Very sad indeed.

Indeed you are, and remain so. Only a ****wit would think that failing to
quote something would erase it.

"Steve Firth" fresh in from kicking **** wrote in
message .. .
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 11:56:12 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

Sad isn't it. There is not
much that can done about him,
it was the way he was brought up.

Try providing some proof that a
vehicle at rest is 100% efficient.

There is zero loss, so 100% efficient. Boy is this **** kicker dumb!

"Steve Firth" fresh in from kicking **** wrote in
message ...
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 11:57:13 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

Sad isn't it. Very sad indeed.

Indeed

This is encouraging. Self awareness. Only when he realises his problem can
he face it, and overcome it.

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 13:20:14 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Steve Firth" fresh in from kicking **** wrote in
message .. .
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 11:56:12 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

Sad isn't it. There is not
much that can done about him,
it was the way he was brought up.

Try providing some proof that a
vehicle at rest is 100% efficient.

There is zero loss, so 100% efficient. Boy is this **** kicker dumb!

How far has the vehicle travelled?

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 13:21:44 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Steve Firth" fresh in from kicking **** wrote in
message ...
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 11:57:13 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

Sad isn't it. Very sad indeed.

Indeed you are, and remain so. Only a ****wit would think that failing to
quote something would erase it.

This is encouraging. Self awareness. Only when he realises his problem can
he face it, and overcome it.

You can snip but you can't hide from your own stupidity.

"Steve Firth" fresh in from kicking **** wrote in
message .. .
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 13:20:14 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Steve Firth" fresh in from kicking **** wrote in
message .. .
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 11:56:12 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

Sad isn't it. There is not
much that can done about him,
it was the way he was brought up.

Try providing some proof that a
vehicle at rest is 100% efficient.

There is zero loss, so 100% efficient. Boy is this **** kicker dumb!

How far has the vehicle travelled?

This is sad. He is really that dumb. I blame the parents.

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 12:08:58 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

to recharge a 50KWh battery in say 5 minutes takes 600Kw. 2400A. at 250v.

Or a less unreasonable 800A per phase 3 phase, or 450A per phase at 440V

Not impossible, but not trivial either.

That's going to be forecourt technology, with a cable as thick as a
petrol/diesel filling hose!

However one could envisage the forecourt operators and vehicle designers
conspiring together to offer slower (30 - 60 minute, but still faster than
at-home) charging tied to supermarkets, cafes etc so that the punters form
a captive market for the retail offering while waiting for their vehicle
to charge up.

One would expect to pay more per kWH for the convenience (and the
operator's investment in the infrastructure) with the cheaper, slower
option of charging up at home from a more modestly rated home outlet, or
trickle/very-slow charging/topping up from a standard (13-15A-ish) mains
outlet. Of course if electric vehicles acheive a true mass-market there
will be lots of people for whom home charging is simply not an option
since they don't have off-road parking so forecourt charging will be the
only option.

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 12:18:20 +0100, Steve Firth wrote:

Try providing some proof that a vehicle at rest is 100% efficient.

It will involve mathematics, so I'm willing to take a break from yoru
drivel while you go back to school.

Come on Steve, the efficiency is useful-power / total-power

so if the numerator and denominator are both zero that works out at 1
(100% efficiency) though the fact that the denominator is zero tells you
it's a pretty meaningless result.

So really you're both right: Dr D is correct in the 100% bit, and it's a
load of ******** which we all expect from him anyway :-)

Still it seems a valid point that in congested traffic an electric vehicle
will generally be vastly more efficient than anything which has to keep an
engine running (which needn't mean all IC engined vehicles, but in
practice ATM it does). I think this has been the accepted wisdom
since the earliest days of the electric milk float.

"John Stumbles" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 12:18:20 +0100, Steve Firth fesh in from kicking ****
wrote:

Try providing some proof that a vehicle at rest is 100% efficient.

It will involve mathematics, so I'm willing to take a break from yoru
drivel while you go back to school.

Come on Steve, the efficiency is useful-power / total-power

so if the numerator and denominator are both zero that works out at 1
(100% efficiency) though the fact that the denominator is zero tells you
it's a pretty meaningless result.

So really you're both right: Dr D is correct in the 100% bit, and it's a
load of ******** which we all expect from him anyway :-)

It's 100% efficient when stopped at the lights. The maths check out too.
Boy are people from grotty towns dumb!

Still it seems a valid point that in
congested traffic an electric vehicle
will generally be vastly more efficient
than anything which has to keep an
engine running (which needn't mean
all IC engined vehicles, but in
practice ATM it does). I think this has
been the accepted wisdom
since the earliest days of the electric milk float.

The ****kickers can only relate to tractors.

"John Stumbles" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 12:08:58 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

to recharge a 50KWh battery in say 5 minutes takes 600Kw. 2400A. at 250v.

Or a less unreasonable 800A per phase 3 phase, or 450A per phase at 440V

Not impossible, but not trivial either.

That's going to be forecourt technology, with a cable as thick as a
petrol/diesel filling hose!

No change there then.

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Try providing some proof that a
vehicle at rest is 100% efficient.

There is zero loss, so 100% efficient.

The purpose of a vehicle is to move, so cannot be anything other than 0%
efficient at standstill.

But to put it on your planet where boilers are 110% efficient, how
efficient is a boiler when switched off? 210% efficient by your reckoning?

Boy is this **** kicker dumb!

The whole world is wrong. Only you are right. So try joining this world.

--
*No husband has ever been shot while doing the dishes *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
It's 100% efficient when stopped at the lights.

Boy you're thick.

The maths check out too.

What maths? Efficiency is work done against energy used. If no work is
done...

Boy are people from grotty towns dumb!

Yup - and they don't come grottier than MK. But I suppose it's the best
you can afford.

--
*Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

Try providing some proof that a
vehicle at rest is 100% efficient.

There is zero loss, so 100% efficient.

The purpose

Look at this, he is trying to think. Sad isn't it, as it comes out all
wrong.

Look what thinking did for him..

But to put it on your planet where
boilers are 110% efficient,

Look what Viessmann say:
"Boilers which exploit condensing technology achieve a standard efficiency
of up to 109 % by gaining additional energy from flue gases (natural gas)"

snip senile babble

Sad isn't it. Very sad. I blame Thatcher.

"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

It's 100% efficient when stopped at the lights.

Boy

He has gone all haywire. It must be the hot weather and those loafers he
wears.

snip total senile babble

He is a sad one indeed. Very sad.

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Look what Viessmann say: "Boilers which exploit condensing technology
achieve a standard efficiency of up to 109 % by gaining additional
energy from flue gases (natural gas)"

Then they are as stupid as you. To achieve over 100% efficiency would mean
perpetual motion. But you probably think this has already been invented
because you believe adverts. Has your penis grown to 2ft yet?

--
*Whatever kind of look you were going for, you missed.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 15:37:31 GMT, John Stumbles wrote:

so if the numerator and denominator are both zero that works out at 1

Err no, 0/0 is not 1.

"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

Look what Viessmann say: "Boilers
which exploit condensing technology
achieve a standard efficiency of up to
109 % by gaining additional
energy from flue gases (natural gas)"

Then they are as stupid as you.

There you have it, need we say more. Richard Cranium is saying that
Viessmann, the Teutonic designers and builders of condensing boilers,
amongst the finest in the world are....."stupid". Yes that is what Richard
Cranium said. I hope he has cleaned all the doggy doos off his loafers
tonight.

snip senile babble

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 15:14:33 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Steve Firth" fresh in from kicking **** wrote in
message ...
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 13:21:44 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Steve Firth" fresh in from kicking **** wrote in
message ...
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 11:57:13 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

Sad isn't it. Very sad indeed.

Indeed you are, and remain so. Only a ****wit would think that failing
to quote something would erase it.

This is encouraging. Self awareness. Only when he realises his problem
can he face it, and overcome it.

You can snip but you can't hide from your own stupidity.

The problem is getting him to realise his problem. Difficult I know.

Why are you talking about yourself in the third person? Why are you so
stupid that you think that failing to quote something and failing to
acknowledge the fact somehow erases the unquoted material?

"Steve Firth" fresh in from kicking **** wrote in
message ...
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 15:14:33 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Steve Firth" fresh in from kicking **** wrote in
message ...
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 13:21:44 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Steve Firth" fresh in from kicking **** wrote
in message ...
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 11:57:13 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

Sad isn't it. Very sad indeed.

Indeed you are, and remain so.
Only a ****wit would think that failing
to quote something would erase it.

This is encouraging. Self awareness.
Only when he realises his problem
can he face it, and overcome it.

You can snip but you can't
hide from your own stupidity.

The problem is getting him to realise
his problem. Difficult I know.

Why are

As I said he will not accept or recognise his problem, after him raising our
hopes.

Steve - i`ve got a small Qbasic program that will wrap whatever you want
to say to whatever size you like (i`m quite partial to sites that pi$$
me off, but allow uploads of a certain size - set it to 1k below the
limit, and tell them what you think :-)

John Stumbles wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 12:08:58 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

to recharge a 50KWh battery in say 5 minutes takes 600Kw. 2400A. at 250v.

Or a less unreasonable 800A per phase 3 phase, or 450A per phase at 440V

Not impossible, but not trivial either.

That's going to be forecourt technology, with a cable as thick as a
petrol/diesel filling hose!

However one could envisage the forecourt operators and vehicle designers
conspiring together to offer slower (30 - 60 minute, but still faster than
at-home) charging tied to supermarkets, cafes etc so that the punters form
a captive market for the retail offering while waiting for their vehicle
to charge up.

One would expect to pay more per kWH for the convenience (and the
operator's investment in the infrastructure) with the cheaper, slower
option of charging up at home from a more modestly rated home outlet, or
trickle/very-slow charging/topping up from a standard (13-15A-ish) mains
outlet. Of course if electric vehicles acheive a true mass-market there
will be lots of people for whom home charging is simply not an option
since they don't have off-road parking so forecourt charging will be the
only option.


On street parking meters?

Steve Firth wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 15:37:31 GMT, John Stumbles wrote:

so if the numerator and denominator are both zero that works out at 1

Err no, 0/0 is not 1.

It is actually incalculable.

On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 13:35:28 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Steve Firth" fresh in from kicking **** wrote in
message .. .
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 17:27:01 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

Made by Lotus

As was the chassis (and it is rumoured quite a bit more) of the
DeLorean, another car that was going to change the face of motoring.

The septics have a track record of making ****ing stupid claims about
cars and you have a track record of being ****ing stupid.

Yes, must disappoint you it's not a tractor makers.

Indeed, some of my favourite cars are Aston Martin, Lamborghini and
Ferrari.

All that **** you can drive through.

You don't have much of a clue about arable farming do you? Oh, hang on, you
don't have much of a clue.

snip kick****ter inane drivel

Perhaps you can show what was either inane or drivel?

In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 15:14:33 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in
message ...
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 13:21:44 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

You can snip but you can't hide from your own stupidity.

The problem is getting him to realise his problem. Difficult I know.

Why are you talking about yourself in the third person? Why are you so
stupid that you think that failing to quote something and failing to
acknowledge the fact somehow erases the unquoted material?

It's an interesting point. He's probably got his newsreader set to expire
all posts other than his after a day. So each night he sits up reading all
his old stuff, till his nurse forces him to go to bed.

--
*If your feet smell and your nose runs, you're built upside down.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 22:19:16 +0100, Colin Wilson wrote:

Steve - i`ve got a small Qbasic program that will wrap whatever you want
to say to whatever size you like (i`m quite partial to sites that pi$$
me off, but allow uploads of a certain size - set it to 1k below the
limit, and tell them what you think :-)

Thanks, I've a small perl script that does the same thing. The art is to
make it read correctly both vertically and horizontally.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
so if the numerator and denominator are both zero that works out at 1

Err no, 0/0 is not 1.

It is actually incalculable.

Surely anything divided by zero is infinity?

--
*If only you'd use your powers for good instead of evil.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Look what Viessmann say: "Boilers
which exploit condensing technology
achieve a standard efficiency of up to
109 % by gaining additional
energy from flue gases (natural gas)"

Then they are as stupid as you.

There you have it, need we say more. Richard Cranium is saying that
Viessmann, the Teutonic designers and builders of condensing boilers,
amongst the finest in the world are....."stupid".

They expect professionals to know what 'standard efficiency' means.
Sadly, you confuse it with efficiency. So yes they are stupid to use it
without explanation, because you claim to be a pro but obviously don't
understand it.

--
*I love cats...they taste just like chicken.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
so if the numerator and denominator are both zero that works out at 1

Err no, 0/0 is not 1.

It is actually incalculable.

Surely anything divided by zero is infinity?

Apart from zero.

cheers,
clive

"Steve Firth" fresh in from kicking **** wrote in
message ...
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 13:35:28 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Steve Firth" fresh in from kicking **** wrote in
message .. .
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 17:27:01 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote:

Made by Lotus

As was the chassis (and it is rumoured quite a bit more) of the
DeLorean, another car that was going to change the face of motoring.

The septics have a track record of making ****ing stupid claims about
cars and you have a track record of being ****ing stupid.

Yes, must disappoint you it's not a tractor makers.

snip ****kicker drivel

snip kick****ter inane drivel

Perhaps you can show what was either inane or drivel?

This is clear that he can't even recognise inane drivel and babble. This is
a sad case indeed.

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 23:53:34 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"Paul Herber" wrote in message
well.net...
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 16:05:47 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

completely silent.

Has anyone considered the effect of the silent road vehicle on the
accident rate for collisions with pedestrains, cyclists and horse
riders ?

There has been a suggestion of a proximity buzzer.

but not by anybody who has a qualification beyond GCSE Simple Science.

--
Regards, Paul Herber, Sandrila Ltd. http://www.pherber.com/
Electronics for Visio http://www.electronics.sandrila.co.uk/

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 23:36:56 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
so if the numerator and denominator are both zero that works out at 1

Err no, 0/0 is not 1.

It is actually incalculable.

Surely anything divided by zero is infinity?

But surely zero divided by anything is zero? :-)

As TNP says it's incalculable (or meaningless or undef or NULL or whatever
you like to represent not-a-number). Perhaps more interesting and/or
useful is what happens as the ratio of useful work to total work tends to
zero. If I could remember anything of my school calculus I might embarrass
myself offering a mathematical analysis :-)

However in the spirit of Scroggie I'll attempt an arm-waving one instead.

Consider what happens at 1 mph, 0.1mph, 0.01mph etc. Assume there is no
wind and the vehicle is on a flat level surface. The losses due to air
resistance are miniscule, so we have basically rolling resistance plus
losses in the engine itself and its transmission. These probably do not
dimish with speed so the efficiency doesn't tend to 100% (although the
effeciency of the electric vehicle is obviously going to be hugely better
than the IC vehicle).

Doctor Drivel wrote:

No replacement disc pads have been sold for a Pirus yet, the brake regen
does it all.

Complete ********.

The effective breaking "power" of something prius sized will be in the
order of several 100 horse power. Even short circuiting the motor is not
going to get you anything like that in back emf breaking.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Look what Viessmann say: "Boilers
which exploit condensing technology
achieve a standard efficiency of up to
109 % by gaining additional
energy from flue gases (natural gas)"

Then they are as stupid as you.

There you have it, need we say more.
Richard Cranium is saying that
Viessmann, the Teutonic designers
and builders of condensing boilers,
amongst the finest in the world are....."stupid".

They expect

sip senile babble yet again

It is clear he is getting worse. He should not be allowed near the
computer. I bet he hasn't cleaned that doggy doos off his loafers yet.

"Clive George" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
so if the numerator and denominator are both zero that works out at 1

Err no, 0/0 is not 1.

It is actually incalculable.

Surely anything divided by zero is infinity?

Apart from zero.

...which is very definate.

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 23:01:57 GMT, John Stumbles wrote:

the effeciency of the electric vehicle is obviously going to be hugely
better than the IC vehicle).

Right up until the moment that you do the calculation correctly and factor
in generation and transmission efficiencies.

"John Rumm" aka Chav wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

No replacement disc pads have been sold for a Pirus yet, the brake regen
does it all.

Complete ********.

'fraid not Chav.