In message , The Natural Philosopher
wrote

I hope the electric racing formula comes to fruition, because that will
establish viable technologies really quickly.


They cannot even get KERS (Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems) to work
reliably on racing cars.
--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 25/04/2011 11:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 24/04/2011 10:48, John Williamson wrote:
...
Does a car *have* to be a fashion item or could it be just a means of
transport?

I don't recall ever buying a car as anything other than a means of
transport. I'm with Isambard Kingdom Brunel who, when asked about the
livery to be used on the Great Western Railway carriages replied along
the lines that the outside could be tarred for all he cared, provided
the inside was comfortable.


In the future, the desire for economical personal transport may override
the desire to have the latest and greatest fashion item, and why change
it every year or two for one that looks "better". Looks or function?
Which is more important?

I go for function, but I won't guarantee that my idea of functionality
matches yours. I want a vehicle that I can drive at motorway speeds
for a whole day without needing to refuel and with all the safety and
comfort extras that modern technology allows. To me, that is a
functional car.


let's see..12 hours at 70mph..that's 960 miles..

at 50mpg, that would be about 19.2 gallons..

How many cars have tanks that big?

I bought the extended 80 litre tank. The manufacturer's figure for
extra-urban consumption is 60.1 mpg = 21.27 km/l = 1702 km @ 130kph =
13.09 hours. In practice, I probably won't get the manufacturer's
figure, but neither am I likely to want to drive more than eight hours
in one day.

Colin Bignell

On 24/04/2011 23:48, Gib Bogle wrote:
On 4/25/2011 5:20 AM, Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 24/04/2011 10:48, John Williamson wrote:
...
Does a car *have* to be a fashion item or could it be just a means of
transport?

I don't recall ever buying a car as anything other than a means of
transport. I'm with Isambard Kingdom Brunel who, when asked about the
livery to be used on the Great Western Railway carriages replied along
the lines that the outside could be tarred for all he cared, provided
the inside was comfortable.


In the future, the desire for economical personal transport may override
the desire to have the latest and greatest fashion item, and why change
it every year or two for one that looks "better". Looks or function?
Which is more important?

I go for function, but I won't guarantee that my idea of functionality
matches yours. I want a vehicle that I can drive at motorway speeds for
a whole day without needing to refuel and with all the safety and
comfort extras that modern technology allows. To me, that is a
functional car.

"all the safety and comfort extras that modern technology allows"
certainly qualifies "as anything other than a means of transport".

Not in my book. I view comfort when driving as a safety feature and the
highest practical level of safety as an inherent requirement of any
means of transport.

Colin Bignell

On 25/04/2011 11:47, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 23/04/2011 15:28, John Williamson wrote:
Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:


That, of course, presupposes that it is even possible to develop a
battery that can be recharged in anything like the time it takes to
fill a car with liquid fuel.


That will never happen, but make an interchangeable battery pack on all
vehicles in the same class (Cars, delivery vans, motor bikes)
compulsory, and just pop the flat one out and pop the charged one in.
It'd take seconds to change the pack,which is held as common stock by
the energy supplier, rented off them at a suitable cost, and can be
charged from the best source available and maintained at a convenient
time.


That would require a agreement by the manufacturers to accept a common
design that would remain exactly the same size and shape and have
exactly the same fittings for many decades to come, despite any
advances in technology. Do you really think that is ever likely to
happen?


Its about as stupid as expecting every elecrtrical applinace to have a
compatible 13A plug on it.

I wasn't aware that had been agreed world-wide, which any vehicle
battery system would have to be.

Colin Bignell

On 24/04/2011 19:17, Tim Watts wrote:
wrote:

On 23/04/2011 15:28, John Williamson wrote:
Nightjar"cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:


That, of course, presupposes that it is even possible to develop a
battery that can be recharged in anything like the time it takes to
fill a car with liquid fuel.


That will never happen, but make an interchangeable battery pack on all
vehicles in the same class (Cars, delivery vans, motor bikes)
compulsory, and just pop the flat one out and pop the charged one in.
It'd take seconds to change the pack,which is held as common stock by
the energy supplier, rented off them at a suitable cost, and can be
charged from the best source available and maintained at a convenient
time.


That would require a agreement by the manufacturers to accept a common
design that would remain exactly the same size and shape and have
exactly the same fittings for many decades to come, despite any advances
in technology. Do you really think that is ever likely to happen?

Colin Bignell

The gas bottle suppliers managed it. Small range of common sizes and regular
fittings.

Is there? Last year I bought a bottle for a small gas fire I had, only
to find I couldn't use it because the bottle fitting had been changed.

I'm sure there was an evolutionary process there, but with cars, they'd have
to get a common aggreemnet in place otherwise there wouldn't be a hope in
hell of kickstarting a national support infratructure without which
*anyones* efforts to make such a car would be dead in the water.

For national, read international if it is going to work.

More likely, it would be an agreement between a few big boys (take your pick
from Ford, GM, VAG, random Japanese etc) and everyone else would fall in out
of necessity.

Unless, of course, two different big boys decide they want different
standards.

The principle successfully works in many technological areas where lots of
different kit needs to interoperate for the whole system to work.

How many last in the same form for several decades? That is what would
be required for any car battery system, to make it worth the expenditure
on the infrastructure to support it.

Colin Bignell

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

andrew wrote:

I suppose 7Kw would propell a small car on the flat at 30mph.

just about. That's what I have in my lawnmower..(10 bhp)


But actually its not POWER that is the problem, its energy.

Yes, one earlier proposition was that a small engine run constantly at
optimum load and speed was more efficient, hence saving energy. Also if we
think the rise in costs will affect liquid fuels more than the grid it will
pay to start with a fully charged battery and the small generator only run
whilst moving and to augment the battery. I actually don't think it would
be sensible to aim to charge the battery on the run because the charge
discharge cycle has losses. The actual electric motor can be considerably
more powerful to allow for acceleration and modest higher speeds.

What counts is the power it takes to propel a small car at 50mph or so.
Not the peak power. And my guess is that 10bhp is easily enough for
that, on relatively skinny wheels and with a reasonable aero performance.

I actually have to commute at just a bit more than that speed, when the car
was only 125k miles old it managed 70mpg, more recently with 75k more on
the odometer I see it has fallen to ~65mpg, so currently I consume
0.7kWHr(t)/mile, at a cost of just over 10p/mile.

I would expect there to be more scope to play with HGVs, ours uses
GBP2500 cost of fuel a month. As big trucks and locos can have diesel
electric a pantograph over the slow lane looks a way of reducing
dependence on fossil liquids.


That would seem to be a possibility BUT what happens when a truck breaks
it?

Breaks the overheads?


I am more interested in a palletised system whereby you drive to the
nearest rail pickup interchange - computer controlled marshalling yard,
and dump a container or something on a train..and then pick up anything
that's arrived for last 25 mile delivery or whatever.

i.e. move all long distance freight to rail.

I might have agreed that 40 years ago, now having controlled a freight train
and contracted to nitwork rail I don't, the problems associated with
meeting their accreditation and standards simply load the price too much to
be competitive and not all this is to do with safety, the road network is
too much more flexible. I believe the private lorry sector is quite
efficient and double handling stuff isn't, even with containers, with the
exception of waterborne journeys.

Road trains anyone?

AJH

On 23/04/2011 15:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:

Think ahead and deciding that electric vehicle technology still has
too far to go to make them useful for anything other than a shopping
runabout is more to the point.

95% of our car use is just that..

It is a lot easier to use a car that will lazily eat up the miles to go
shopping than it is to use a car that is only suitable for shopping to
cross half of Europe.

That, of course, presupposes that it is even possible to develop a
battery that can be recharged in anything like the time it takes to
fill a car with liquid fuel.


Oh, its possible. 5 minutes is possible. I spent longer than that
queuing for diesel yesterday...

I never go into a filling station if I am going to have to queue.

Its not efficient and there are safety issues, and it might not be more
than a 90% charge, but its doable in the lab. IIRC they got down to 2
minutes on a particular cell technology.

But imagine charging 100Kwh in two minutes! that's a peak power rating
of 3MW!!!

Not impossible, but some interesting challenges..

I think impractical for transport in the forseeable future is more to
the point.

Colin Bignell

On 25/04/2011 15:18, Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 24/04/2011 20:28, John Williamson wrote:
Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 24/04/2011 10:48, John Williamson wrote:
...
Does a car *have* to be a fashion item or could it be just a means of
transport?

I don't recall ever buying a car as anything other than a means of
transport. I'm with Isambard Kingdom Brunel who, when asked about the
livery to be used on the Great Western Railway carriages replied along
the lines that the outside could be tarred for all he cared, provided
the inside was comfortable.


In the future, the desire for economical personal transport may
override
the desire to have the latest and greatest fashion item, and why
change
it every year or two for one that looks "better". Looks or function?
Which is more important?

I go for function, but I won't guarantee that my idea of functionality
matches yours. I want a vehicle that I can drive at motorway speeds
for a whole day without needing to refuel and with all the safety and
comfort extras that modern technology allows. To me, that is a
functional car.

And if, for the sake of argument, your idea of a functional car cost ten
or twenty times the amount to run that my proposed system would, what
then?

I can't see that making much difference to me. Convenience and comfort
are much more important to me than mere cost.

I notice you also say "want" not "need".

I *need* food, shelter and warmth enough to live. Anything else is a
desire, but I certainly wouldn't wish to live at the minimum level of
my needs. You can subsitute 'have' for 'want' if you prefer.

I can see, with political will, a time not too far in the future when
using your own car to drive anywhere could be made to seem as antisocial
as smoking in a public enclosed space seems now.

I don't see that as anti-social; merely a stupid rule imposed by a
nanny state based on dubious science. I am a life-long non-smoker BTW.

Colin Bignell


I find the contradiction on the ageing population weird. The government
bans smoking in public etc. then moans that tax receipts are lower and
we have an ageing population and a pension short fall.

The answer is obvious. High tar fags at a reasonable price and taxed so
that the cost of medical care is more than covered. High tar so the
effect is almost guaranteed and quick. The excess tax is used to pay the
pensions of the non smoker. Allow smoking in pubs if the landlord wants
to and allow non smoking as a enforceable rule. IE it is illegal to
smoke in a non smoking bar/ train/ bus etc. With signage stating the
smoking non smoking status.

That way all the society would benefit and freedom would be re
established to the society in general. Pubs would recover and the long
term problems would be sorted.

Gary

In article ,
Gary wrote:
The answer is obvious. High tar fags at a reasonable price and taxed so
that the cost of medical care is more than covered. High tar so the
effect is almost guaranteed and quick. The excess tax is used to pay the
pensions of the non smoker. Allow smoking in pubs if the landlord wants
to and allow non smoking as a enforceable rule. IE it is illegal to
smoke in a non smoking bar/ train/ bus etc. With signage stating the
smoking non smoking status.

That way all the society would benefit and freedom would be re
established to the society in general. Pubs would recover and the long
term problems would be sorted.

That would depend on whether the cheap fags or booze gets them first...

I find it quite amusing that one dangerous drug is positively encouraged,
while others are vilified.

--
*I will always cherish the initial misconceptions I had about you

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

Donwill wrote:
On 25/04/2011 12:23, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
The Natural wrote:

What counts is the power it takes to propel a small car at 50mph or so.
Not the peak power. And my guess is that 10bhp is easily enough for
that, on relatively skinny wheels and with a reasonable aero
performance.


Fr a more robust saloon car, its probably nearer 20-30bhp though.

The original OHV Morris Minor (803cc) had 28 bhp and a top speed of 64
mph.

A single overhead cam driven through a vertically mounted dynamo at the
front, I used to have one in the late 50s, petrol tank was behind the
dashboard with the tap projecting below it; it dripped and we all smoked
in those days. Another problem was the oil seal on the camshaft pan, oil
used to drip into the dynamo.

Not a layout I can recall from ANY care.

Early morris was side valve IIRC.


And dynamos don't drive anything except batteries.

You been at the Communion wine again grandad.

Dave Baker wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
What counts is the power it takes to propel a small car at 50mph or so.
Not the peak power. And my guess is that 10bhp is easily enough for that,
on relatively skinny wheels and with a reasonable aero performance.

Fr a more robust saloon car, its probably nearer 20-30bhp though.

The equations for power v speed and theoretical optimum fuel consumption for
road cars are given on my website.

http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/TOPSPEED.htm

About 12 bhp at 50 mph and 60 mpg for a "robust" modern saloon car of
average dimensions and aero drag. The reason most petrol cars get nowhere
near the listed fuel consumption figures is because they have large engines
working at very inefficient throttle openings at such low speed. Diesel
engines do much better as do small petrol ones.

Nice one.

Leccies are like diesels though. They can be set up for best efficiency
at modest power, losing efficiency at high power due to heat losses in
the wires mainly. That great for occasional acceleration bursts as the
cold windings will be fine..for a while less good for racing :-)

But I think people will want at least 70-80mph tops these days, which
means you had better expect nearer 20bhp average draw

So for 200+ miles that's a 50Kwh battery give or take, and at 3KW
recharge from flat (13A plug) its over 16 hours ..so its likely that you
are limited to 100 miles a day with 8 hrs overnight domestic ring charging.

Alan wrote:
In message , The Natural Philosopher
wrote

Its about as stupid as expecting every elecrtrical applinace to have a
compatible 13A plug on it.

Yep, and the maximum size of the power supply attached would just be
enough to charge your mobile phone - not too good if you want the power
supply to cook your lunch in an oven.

The connection into the supply could be common but I doubt that the
"common" battery pack for white van man would suit the 2 seat SMART car.
Any more than a triple A cell will start you car.

That doesn't mean we don't have standard battery sizes though.

And - Gasp - batteries can be placed in series for double the capacity..

If we look at - say - a 25Kwh block, the smart car has one, the family
sallon has two and the transit maybe has four...and the Jag gets 6!!!

Alan wrote:
In message , The Natural Philosopher
wrote

I hope the electric racing formula comes to fruition, because that
will establish viable technologies really quickly.


They cannot even get KERS (Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems) to work
reliably on racing cars.


Its a lot *harder* on a racing car powered by an IC engine.

Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 25/04/2011 11:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 24/04/2011 10:48, John Williamson wrote:
...
Does a car *have* to be a fashion item or could it be just a means of
transport?

I don't recall ever buying a car as anything other than a means of
transport. I'm with Isambard Kingdom Brunel who, when asked about the
livery to be used on the Great Western Railway carriages replied along
the lines that the outside could be tarred for all he cared, provided
the inside was comfortable.


In the future, the desire for economical personal transport may
override
the desire to have the latest and greatest fashion item, and why change
it every year or two for one that looks "better". Looks or function?
Which is more important?

I go for function, but I won't guarantee that my idea of functionality
matches yours. I want a vehicle that I can drive at motorway speeds
for a whole day without needing to refuel and with all the safety and
comfort extras that modern technology allows. To me, that is a
functional car.


let's see..12 hours at 70mph..that's 960 miles..

at 50mpg, that would be about 19.2 gallons..

How many cars have tanks that big?

I bought the extended 80 litre tank. The manufacturer's figure for
extra-urban consumption is 60.1 mpg = 21.27 km/l = 1702 km @ 130kph =
13.09 hours. In practice, I probably won't get the manufacturer's
figure, but neither am I likely to want to drive more than eight hours
in one day.

I've driven 24 hours with only fuel stops and a 15 minute break.

Colin Bignell

Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 25/04/2011 11:47, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 23/04/2011 15:28, John Williamson wrote:
Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:


That, of course, presupposes that it is even possible to develop a
battery that can be recharged in anything like the time it takes to
fill a car with liquid fuel.


That will never happen, but make an interchangeable battery pack on all
vehicles in the same class (Cars, delivery vans, motor bikes)
compulsory, and just pop the flat one out and pop the charged one in.
It'd take seconds to change the pack,which is held as common stock by
the energy supplier, rented off them at a suitable cost, and can be
charged from the best source available and maintained at a convenient
time.


That would require a agreement by the manufacturers to accept a common
design that would remain exactly the same size and shape and have
exactly the same fittings for many decades to come, despite any
advances in technology. Do you really think that is ever likely to
happen?


Its about as stupid as expecting every elecrtrical applinace to have a
compatible 13A plug on it.

I wasn't aware that had been agreed world-wide, which any vehicle
battery system would have to be.


OK it'samazing you can drive to France and the petrol still works, isn't it?

Or fly to hong kong and the avjet still runs the aeroplane?

Since all cart manufactires are pan national, these days, its not very
likely that they would NOT create a standard.

Heck there are only half a dozen distinct manufacturers of any car
component you care to mention.


Colin Bignell

andrew wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:


i.e. move all long distance freight to rail.

I might have agreed that 40 years ago, now having controlled a freight train
and contracted to nitwork rail I don't, the problems associated with
meeting their accreditation and standards simply load the price too much to
be competitive and not all this is to do with safety, the road network is
too much more flexible. I believe the private lorry sector is quite
efficient and double handling stuff isn't, even with containers, with the
exception of waterborne journeys.


I think if the cost of fuel goes up enough, then the cost of rail even
with the double loading issue, gets competitive.

And government stupidity can be fixed.

I view the whole think like an Internet. Trucks and parcels are packet
switched networks routed along road/rail networks. There is no real
choice for the last 5 miles, but on longer hauls, you are balancing the
overhead of tunneling through someone elses network with the cost of
running your own.

And fully automated freight trains or even as you say road trains, are
perfectly possible.

Take the two fast lanes of the motorways, and make em railways. Drive
up, couple up, plug in and let the train take the strain..

Road trains anyone?

AJH

Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 23/04/2011 15:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:

Think ahead and deciding that electric vehicle technology still has
too far to go to make them useful for anything other than a shopping
runabout is more to the point.

95% of our car use is just that..

It is a lot easier to use a car that will lazily eat up the miles to go
shopping than it is to use a car that is only suitable for shopping to
cross half of Europe.

That, of course, presupposes that it is even possible to develop a
battery that can be recharged in anything like the time it takes to
fill a car with liquid fuel.


Oh, its possible. 5 minutes is possible. I spent longer than that
queuing for diesel yesterday...

I never go into a filling station if I am going to have to queue.

Its not efficient and there are safety issues, and it might not be more
than a 90% charge, but its doable in the lab. IIRC they got down to 2
minutes on a particular cell technology.

But imagine charging 100Kwh in two minutes! that's a peak power rating
of 3MW!!!

Not impossible, but some interesting challenges..

I think impractical for transport in the forseeable future is more to
the point.

In the immediate future yes, the forseeable, no.





Colin Bignell

On 25/04/2011 17:27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Donwill wrote:
On 25/04/2011 12:23, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
The Natural wrote:
What counts is the power it takes to propel a small car at 50mph or
so.
Not the peak power. And my guess is that 10bhp is easily enough for
that, on relatively skinny wheels and with a reasonable aero
performance.
Fr a more robust saloon car, its probably nearer 20-30bhp though.
The original OHV Morris Minor (803cc) had 28 bhp and a top speed of
64 mph.
A single overhead cam driven through a vertically mounted dynamo at
the front, I used to have one in the late 50s, petrol tank was behind
the dashboard with the tap projecting below it; it dripped and we all
smoked in those days. Another problem was the oil seal on the
camshaft pan, oil used to drip into the dynamo.

Not a layout I can recall from ANY care.
You haven't been around very long then, or if you have granddad, you
didn't learn very much on the way.

Early morris was side valve IIRC.
Oh dear, do your homework before engaging fingers on keys.


And dynamos don't drive anything except batteries.
Driven through ? You don't understand that?

You been at the Communion wine again grandad.
No, a lovely cool pint of London Pride. :-)
Don

DA wrote:

I guess I can lend them my Prius for longer
trips

Anyone who has a Prius is demonstrating they know exactly (0) about fuel
efficiency and impact upon the environment. Anyone who uses a Prius for
long trips needs a short trip to Mr Reality check. It's exactly the sort
of driving that is pointless in any hybrid.

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
That would require a agreement by the manufacturers to accept a common
design that would remain exactly the same size and shape and have
exactly the same fittings for many decades to come, despite any
advances in technology. Do you really think that is ever likely to
happen?

Colin Bignell

The gas bottle suppliers managed it. Small range of common sizes and
regular fittings.

There is no similarity between them.

--
*The modem is the message *

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

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
The original OHV Morris Minor (803cc) had 28 bhp and a top speed of
64 mph.

A single overhead cam driven through a vertically mounted dynamo at
the front, I used to have one in the late 50s, petrol tank was behind
the dashboard with the tap projecting below it; it dripped and we all
smoked in those days. Another problem was the oil seal on the
camshaft pan, oil used to drip into the dynamo.

Not a layout I can recall from ANY care.

Early morris was side valve IIRC.

The Issigonis one, yes. Although it was intended to have a flat four OHV.

The pre-war MM did indeed have an OHC engine - driven via the dynamo. And
that engine in different forms held many world speed records....


And dynamos don't drive anything except batteries.

--
*I brake for no apparent reason.

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

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

batteries can be placed in series for double the capacity..

Do you believe that they can't be placed in parallel for double the
capacity?

And errm, do you believe that doubling the capacity somehow does not
double the dead weight to be lugged around?

On 25/04/2011 17:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 25/04/2011 11:49, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:
On 24/04/2011 10:48, John Williamson wrote:
...
Does a car *have* to be a fashion item or could it be just a means of
transport?

I don't recall ever buying a car as anything other than a means of
transport. I'm with Isambard Kingdom Brunel who, when asked about the
livery to be used on the Great Western Railway carriages replied along
the lines that the outside could be tarred for all he cared, provided
the inside was comfortable.


In the future, the desire for economical personal transport may
override
the desire to have the latest and greatest fashion item, and why
change
it every year or two for one that looks "better". Looks or function?
Which is more important?

I go for function, but I won't guarantee that my idea of functionality
matches yours. I want a vehicle that I can drive at motorway speeds
for a whole day without needing to refuel and with all the safety and
comfort extras that modern technology allows. To me, that is a
functional car.


let's see..12 hours at 70mph..that's 960 miles..

at 50mpg, that would be about 19.2 gallons..

How many cars have tanks that big?

I bought the extended 80 litre tank. The manufacturer's figure for
extra-urban consumption is 60.1 mpg = 21.27 km/l = 1702 km @ 130kph =
13.09 hours. In practice, I probably won't get the manufacturer's
figure, but neither am I likely to want to drive more than eight hours
in one day.

I've driven 24 hours with only fuel stops and a 15 minute break.

I am amazed at some of the things I did when I was a lot younger. I
wouldn't do them now.

Colin Bignell

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim Watts wrote:
Donwill wrote:

On 25/04/2011 09:51, Huge wrote:
On 2011-04-24, John wrote:

On 24/04/2011 20:28, John Williamson wrote:


I can see, with political will, a time not too far in the future when
using your own car to drive anywhere could be made to seem as
antisocial as smoking in a public enclosed space seems now.

Can't see many voting for that.

Oh, I can see them *voting* for it.

And then realising what they've done.



We've bred a nation of sheep.

We've bred a nation of ill educated people who don't know how to
enlighten themselves (despite the enormous ease of researching almost
any subject in the internet these days). Said sheeple will change
their opinion based on a 2 minute advert irrespective of how the issue
will actually affect them.

We're doomed.



They are doomed. I do not count myself among their number.

Unless you leavem there's a very good chance thay'll take you down with
them.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

They are doomed. I do not count myself among their number.

Unless you leavem there's a very good chance thay'll take you down with
them.

Quick, onto that spaceship, there's a giant mutant star goat heading this way,

Nick
--
Serendipity: http://www.leverton.org/blosxom (last update 29th March 2010)
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996

On 25/04/2011 14:23, Peter Parry wrote:

This was replaced by the vastly more powerful (1.6HP) but equally
badly named NSU Quickly which could reach 10MPH in 20 minutes.
Unfortunately such overt displays of power were usually accompanied by
the quiet ping of the 3mm thick Woodruff key on the drive shaft
shearing under the massive load. It featured a self mixing fuel
system, you poured petrol and two stroke oil into the tank and the
vibration mixed it in 3 seconds. The speedometer measured not speed
but vibrations per second. Probably the only vehicle where, on even a
gentle hill, both engine and rider arrived at the top equally
knackered and with similar amounts of smoke coming out of both.


I remember those. One of my school friends had one. I caught him once
on a long hill; We soon worked out that the best strategy was that he'd
slipstream me uphill, and I'd slipstream him downhill.

The Quickly was much heavier than my pushbike, and far worse at climbing
- but faster on the flat and downhill.

Andy

On 25/04/2011 18:01, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Tim wrote:
That would require a agreement by the manufacturers to accept a common
design that would remain exactly the same size and shape and have
exactly the same fittings for many decades to come, despite any
advances in technology. Do you really think that is ever likely to
happen?

Colin Bignell

The gas bottle suppliers managed it. Small range of common sizes and
regular fittings.

There is no similarity between them.

That is a bit harsh. Camping Gaz and Calor Gas cylinders are not
interchangeable without an adaptor but at a distance of anything above
about 100 yards it is hard to distinguish them apart without a pair of
binoculars. ;-)


--
Roger Chapman

On 25/04/2011 18:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
The Natural wrote:
The original OHV Morris Minor (803cc) had 28 bhp and a top speed of
64 mph.

A single overhead cam driven through a vertically mounted dynamo at
the front, I used to have one in the late 50s, petrol tank was behind
the dashboard with the tap projecting below it; it dripped and we all
smoked in those days. Another problem was the oil seal on the
camshaft pan, oil used to drip into the dynamo.

Not a layout I can recall from ANY care.

Early morris was side valve IIRC.

The Issigonis one, yes. Although it was intended to have a flat four OHV.

It was also intended to be about 4 inches narrower.

The pre-war MM did indeed have an OHC engine - driven via the dynamo. And
that engine in different forms held many world speed records....

OHC - driven via the dynamo.

ISTR an engine with the waterpump on the end of the dynamo shaft but
given my memory that possibly could have been the MM.

And I think you will find that the bean counters at Morris substituted a
cheaper SV for the original OHC before the end of that model run.

snip

--
Roger Chapman

On 25/04/2011 20:49, John Rumm wrote:
....
I have spent 8 hours out of 24 in a traffic jam on the M25 (two
different journeys!)


GPS that listens to the radio traffic news is a marvellous thing.

Colin Bignell

In article ,
Donwill wrote:
And dynamos don't drive anything except batteries.
Driven through ? You don't understand that?

TNP can't have seen a power steering pump hung off the end of a dynamo
either.

--
*A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking *

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

In article ,
Roger Chapman wrote:
The pre-war MM did indeed have an OHC engine - driven via the dynamo.
And that engine in different forms held many world speed records....

OHC - driven via the dynamo.

ISTR an engine with the waterpump on the end of the dynamo shaft but
given my memory that possibly could have been the MM.

And I think you will find that the bean counters at Morris substituted a
cheaper SV for the original OHC before the end of that model run.

They did - and called it the Morris 8. The first 100 gbp car? Perhaps cost
was more important than technology.

--
*We have enough youth, how about a fountain of Smart?

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

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember The Natural Philosopher
saying something like:

As I have said, I am likely to be an early adopter of electrics,

Some of us already are.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember The Natural Philosopher
saying something like:

"You can take a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink
You can lead a man to slaughter, but you cannot make him think".

Istr there was mention of horticulture.

In message , Alan
writes
In message , The Natural Philosopher
wrote

I hope the electric racing formula comes to fruition, because that
will establish viable technologies really quickly.


They cannot even get KERS (Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems) to work
reliably on racing cars.
Correction - Red Bull/Renault cannot get KERs systems to work reliably,
largely because Newey will not compromise at all on the Red Bull
aerodynamics.
--
hugh
"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, Or who said it, Even if
I have said it, Unless it agrees with your own reason And your own
common sense." Buddha

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember The Natural Philosopher
saying something like:

I hope the electric racing formula comes to fruition, because that will
establish viable technologies really quickly.

Electric motorcycle racing's been around for years now.

In message , tony sayer
writes
In article , Tim Watts
scribeth thus
wrote:

On 23/04/2011 15:28, John Williamson wrote:
Nightjar "cpb"@ insertmysurnamehere wrote:


That, of course, presupposes that it is even possible to develop a
battery that can be recharged in anything like the time it takes to
fill a car with liquid fuel.


That will never happen, but make an interchangeable battery pack on all
vehicles in the same class (Cars, delivery vans, motor bikes)
compulsory, and just pop the flat one out and pop the charged one in.
It'd take seconds to change the pack,which is held as common stock by
the energy supplier, rented off them at a suitable cost, and can be
charged from the best source available and maintained at a convenient
time.


That would require a agreement by the manufacturers to accept a common
design that would remain exactly the same size and shape and have
exactly the same fittings for many decades to come, despite any advances
in technology. Do you really think that is ever likely to happen?

Colin Bignell

The gas bottle suppliers managed it. Small range of common sizes and regular
fittings.


Anyone any idea just how far a say 1.6 litre domestic family salon could
go on a bottle of Butane heating gas, the ones around say 2 foot tall
and a foot in diameter?...

Use propane or propane/butane mix as they do in Holland.
In the Autogas conversion business the rule of thumb was that the car
would do about 10% less in gas than on petrol, and a KG of propane is
about 2 litres. Usual practice was a cylindrical tank (say 80 litres) in
the boot or a doughnut , say 50litres in place of the spare wheel.
The big advantage of using propane was not lower CO2 emission but
cleaner exhaust, minimal CO, minimal unburned hydrocarbons, no SO2 and
no nitrous oxides. Having encouraged conversion with lower fuel duty the
government then screwed it up by starting to phase out the differential.
--
hugh
"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, Or who said it, Even if
I have said it, Unless it agrees with your own reason And your own
common sense." Buddha

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Roger Chapman
saying something like:

And I think you will find that the bean counters at Morris substituted a
cheaper SV for the original OHC before the end of that model run.

I think the OHC was horrendously unreliable anyway and needed replacing.

hugh wrote:
In message , Alan
writes
In message , The Natural Philosopher
wrote

I hope the electric racing formula comes to fruition, because that
will establish viable technologies really quickly.


They cannot even get KERS (Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems) to work
reliably on racing cars.
Correction - Red Bull/Renault cannot get KERs systems to work reliably,
largely because Newey will not compromise at all on the Red Bull
aerodynamics.


Possibly more because he concentrated almost exclusively on the
aerodynamics.

which in light of the way tyres are behaving, may have been not the
optimal strategy.

In article ,
hugh ] wrote:
The big advantage of using propane was not lower CO2 emission but
cleaner exhaust, minimal CO, minimal unburned hydrocarbons, no SO2 and
no nitrous oxides. Having encouraged conversion with lower fuel duty the
government then screwed it up by starting to phase out the differential.

Which government where and ever could put up with reducing revenue?
It won't be long before this one works out how to get the same sort of
income from electric vehicles as it does from IC ones. Probably a special
VED for them.

--
*Never put off until tomorrow what you can avoid altogether *

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

Huge wrote:
On 2011-04-26, hugh ] wrote:

Having encouraged conversion with lower fuel duty the
government then screwed it up by starting to phase out the differential.

An inevitability once LPG showed any sign of popularity.

The same will happen to electric cars. The grasping *******s have to steal
the money from somewhere - Ghod forbid they should stop ****ing it away
instead.


well not necessarily...since reducing oil imports will improve the
balance of payments and reduce the need for taxation.