tony sayer wrote:
In article
nal-september.org, Tim scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:
I

Leccy cars are fighting weight all the way..Titanium, carbon fibre,
aluminium...expense...

Well...

One day perhaps the perficke electrical storage system may be invented..

One day they might see the need for all the power thats going to need
and might just start building the nuclear plants to cope with that
rather than ****ing it away with subbed solar and windymills..

One day they might just perfect a type of prime power engine for
vehicles that perhaps burns, reacts, or converts something that releases
no pollutants and is easy to store and carry like petrol..

One day perhaps but seemingly not too soon;(...
Yeahbut, if electrical storage is dramatically improved, renewable energy
sources make more sense, not less.

Tim

Do you seriously think that renewables alone can power the motor
transport needs of the country?.

Or even go someway to achieve that?...

Or more to the point, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

"if electrical storage is dramatically improved"

The society would be totally transformed. Why has this not happened?

Because no technology exists within the known laws of physics and using
elements or compounds that are in the periodic table that can allow this
'if' to become 'when'..


Energu is 'stored' in kinetic, potential, chemical and nuclear forms. Or
in small quantities in electrical fields.

None of these offer simple conversion and easy storage beyond chemical.

The energy density of direct electrochemical storage (batteries) is a
function of the molecular weight and the energy in the outer electron
shells. The best ration is lithium, bar none. Nothing beats lithium
Lithium is not good enough. And there isn't enough of it. End of better
batteries pipe dream.

Kinetic energy is dangerous..flywheels spinning at 500,000 RPM? Made out
of what?

Potential energy is VAST. Think raising the whole north sea 500 meters
to power europe for a month.

What's left? straight chemical energy, like coal or diesel fuel. Good.
But its still fossil or has to be synthesised at rotten efficiencies .

Fuel cells? Burn FUEL. And if made small enough and light enough no more
efficiently than a diesel engine.

Supercapacitors? well a battery powered electric model aircraft can fly
for an hour or more. I think the record for a supercapacitor is 30
seconds. Nuff said. Understand the nature of insulators, capacitors and
the MV/m rating of even the best and you understand why THAT wont save
us either.

What's left? well a kg of fissile material is enough to power you for
life..if ONLY it didn't need a reactor the size of a church to do it
safely...

Or carry on dreaming ..

PERHAPS CERN or the LHR will come up with a sub quantum twist that in 50
years will mean we have more energy than we know what to do with from
some level of reality we don't yet understand or even think exists. That
is FAR more likely than a 'better battery' coming along. Mind you all
that will happen then is someone will make a bloody bomb out of it.

tony sayer wrote:


I rather doubt if anyone's given a thought to how much energy it would
take to power UK transport needs.

I am sorry to say that they have. At least David Mackay , and I, have,
in great detail.

Somewhere around 150-300GW to run the entire country (excluding imported
energy intensive goods and mass immigration) depending on the efficiency
of the transport drive trains and storae systems.

A damm sight more then what
windymill's could produce...

Actually just about feasible if the storage existed, and the entire
country was covered in them to the exclusion of all living areas and
open spaces, radar, terrestrial TV, a lot of mobile phones, and most of
the people..and the chinese would give them to us and install them for
noting rather than 10x the nations GDP in loan repayments for the next
1000 years.


BUT the storage does not, and nor will it ever. Not in any way of
storing it currently known to mankind anyway.

The green solution is to have a FEW windmills and a FEW battery cars for
the Green Party, and everyone else..well they just die. Simples!

Or carry on dreaming ..

PERHAPS CERN or the LHR will come up with a sub quantum twist that in 50
years will mean we have more energy than we know what to do with from
some level of reality we don't yet understand or even think exists. That
is FAR more likely than a 'better battery' coming along. Mind you all
that will happen then is someone will make a bloody bomb out of it.



I wonder if the way forward is some sort of "inductive" power pickup
along main roads and motorways with battery/hybrid backup when "off
gird"
--
Tony Sayer

tony sayer wrote:
Or carry on dreaming ..

PERHAPS CERN or the LHR will come up with a sub quantum twist that in 50
years will mean we have more energy than we know what to do with from
some level of reality we don't yet understand or even think exists. That
is FAR more likely than a 'better battery' coming along. Mind you all
that will happen then is someone will make a bloody bomb out of it.



I wonder if the way forward is some sort of "inductive" power pickup
along main roads and motorways with battery/hybrid backup when "off
gird"

As long as you don't lie down on a road with a pacemaker..

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
Or carry on dreaming ..

PERHAPS CERN or the LHR will come up with a sub quantum twist that in 50
years will mean we have more energy than we know what to do with from
some level of reality we don't yet understand or even think exists.

Look at the work of Nick Tesla. Many of his patents were made secret and
taken off the record.

That
is FAR more likely than a 'better battery' coming along. Mind you all
that will happen then is someone will make a bloody bomb out of it.

I posted about the Toshiba battery. 20 years ago cell phones resembled a
brick because of the battery size. Within a few years the battery was
minuscule. There was little advancement over the years in batteries as the
"pressing" demand was not there. Arguably there was always a demand.
Amazing what they can do when they want to.

I wonder if the way forward is some sort of "inductive" power pickup
along main roads and motorways with battery/hybrid backup when "off
grid"

Mways are so packed they were "think tanking" that cars would need to be on
a rolling conveyor belt or chained together. The cars would not use their
own power - so back to the train. They could plug in along the way and use
batteries after.

Modern batteries with lightweight, insulated body with reflective glass can
go 300 miles.

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...

Do you seriously think that renewables alone can power the motor
transport needs of the country?.

Or even go someway to achieve that?...

The way to reduce energy is to design communities on a human scale so cars
are rarely needed. Cities to have undergrounds just below the surface on
rubber wheels - as per Paris, just jump down a few stairs to the platform.
Towns can have supercapacitor buses. Also built to superinsulation and
passive solar to near eliminate the need to heat & cool.

These communities are far better to live in being highly appealing and
vibrant.

In article , tony sayer wrote:
Or carry on dreaming ..

PERHAPS CERN or the LHR will come up with a sub quantum twist that in 50
years will mean we have more energy than we know what to do with from
some level of reality we don't yet understand or even think exists. That
is FAR more likely than a 'better battery' coming along. Mind you all
that will happen then is someone will make a bloody bomb out of it.

I wonder if the way forward is some sort of "inductive" power pickup
along main roads and motorways with battery/hybrid backup when "off
gird"

http://www.gizmag.com/inductive-char...ld-test/20911/
(It's an inductive charging parking space though, not a road.)

I posted about the Toshiba battery. 20 years ago cell phones resembled a
brick because of the battery size. Within a few years the battery was
minuscule. There was little advancement over the years in batteries as the
"pressing" demand was not there. Arguably there was always a demand.
Amazing what they can do when they want to.

Yes battery tech to some extent, but a lot of cleaver tech in how they
use the battery nowadays to get long service times;!...


--
Tony Sayer

tony sayer wrote:

I posted about the Toshiba battery. 20 years ago cell phones resembled a
brick because of the battery size. Within a few years the battery was
minuscule. There was little advancement over the years in batteries as the
"pressing" demand was not there. Arguably there was always a demand.
Amazing what they can do when they want to.

Yes battery tech to some extent, but a lot of cleaver tech in how they
use the battery nowadays to get long service times;!...



I'm willing to bet that more progress was made in reducing power
consumption hat increasing capacity.

Tim

lid wrote:
tony sayer wrote:
I posted about the Toshiba battery. 20 years ago cell phones resembled a
brick because of the battery size. Within a few years the battery was
minuscule. There was little advancement over the years in batteries as the
"pressing" demand was not there. Arguably there was always a demand.
Amazing what they can do when they want to.
Yes battery tech to some extent, but a lot of cleaver tech in how they
use the battery nowadays to get long service times;!...



I'm willing to bet that more progress was made in reducing power
consumption hat increasing capacity.

My first cellphone had a lead acid battery that held 24 watt-hours, and
needed charging every day, and would only talk for an hour or so. I had
to carry a spare battery with me on a long day.

My current one has a battery about a fiftieth of the physical size,
which holds 5 watt-hours, and will run the phone for three or four days
on standby, or talk for a couple of hours.

The same physical size battery would now run the original phone for a
week or the current phone for a month or more. Admittedly, the old phone
could only be used to talk or as a very slow modem, and the new one is a
PDA as well as a phone and a fast modem, so uses much more power on
standby than a modern equivalent of the old one. I'd say the order of
magnitude is about equal between power saving and battery improvements
over the last fifteen years or so.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...

I posted about the Toshiba battery. 20 years ago cell phones resembled a
brick because of the battery size. Within a few years the battery was
minuscule. There was little advancement over the years in batteries as
the
"pressing" demand was not there. Arguably there was always a demand.
Amazing what they can do when they want to.

Yes battery tech to some extent, but a lot of cleaver tech in how they
use the battery nowadays to get long service times;!...

That applies to all batteries.

wrote in message
...
tony sayer wrote:

I posted about the Toshiba battery. 20 years ago cell phones resembled
a
brick because of the battery size. Within a few years the battery was
minuscule. There was little advancement over the years in batteries as
the
"pressing" demand was not there. Arguably there was always a demand.
Amazing what they can do when they want to.

Yes battery tech to some extent, but a lot of cleaver tech in how they
use the battery nowadays to get long service times;!...

I'm willing to bet that more progress was made in reducing power
consumption hat increasing capacity.

You would loose your shirt then.

John Williamson wrote:
lid wrote:
tony sayer wrote:
I posted about the Toshiba battery. 20 years ago cell phones
resembled a brick because of the battery size. Within a few years
the battery was minuscule. There was little advancement over the
years in batteries as the "pressing" demand was not there. Arguably
there was always a demand. Amazing what they can do when they want to.
Yes battery tech to some extent, but a lot of cleaver tech in how they
use the battery nowadays to get long service times;!...



I'm willing to bet that more progress was made in reducing power
consumption hat increasing capacity.

My first cellphone had a lead acid battery that held 24 watt-hours, and
needed charging every day, and would only talk for an hour or so. I had
to carry a spare battery with me on a long day.

My current one has a battery about a fiftieth of the physical size,
which holds 5 watt-hours, and will run the phone for three or four days
on standby, or talk for a couple of hours.

The same physical size battery would now run the original phone for a
week or the current phone for a month or more. Admittedly, the old phone
could only be used to talk or as a very slow modem, and the new one is a
PDA as well as a phone and a fast modem, so uses much more power on
standby than a modern equivalent of the old one. I'd say the order of
magnitude is about equal between power saving and battery improvements
over the last fifteen years or so.


Its actually massively in favour of power saving and not in favour of
batteries.

A lead acid car battery is only slightly better now than 60 years ago..
they are still the same size, shape and weight.

The lithium batteries of today last a bit longer in total lifetime than
those of 10 years ago, but they are no smaller and lighter.


OTOH my Atom based server is blindingly fast compared to an IBM PC of 25
years ago and use almost no power at all.

with mobile devices, the difference is even more marked - a friend who
worked at Acorn on the original ARM designs said 'we had no money to
develop large chips: so we did the best we could with the amount of
silicon we could afford. Basically we made it run bloody fast. It was
about 5 years later when people noticed we had more MIPS per watt than
anyone else, and tge business really took off..'

On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 21:49:33 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

BUT the storage does not, and nor will it ever. Not in any way of
storing it currently known to mankind anyway.

Lots and lots of glens in Scotland, and **** the NIMBYs.


The green solution is to have a FEW windmills and a FEW battery cars for
the Green Party, and everyone else..well they just die. Simples!

I see a future where energy consumption will HAVE to be drastically
reduced or the living standards we take for granted nowadays will just
vanish - or only be available to the rich.
Super-insulating houses is one element of it, reducing lighting and
appliance consumption is another, but a significant effect will be the
need to throttle back on unnecessary motor vehicle use - whether
diesel, petrol, or electric powered. [1]
I sincerely hope we don't fall into the clutches of the Green Party in
the forthcoming years, as they're as bad in their own way as the
rotten selfish Tories or the crazy Left of the Labour Party. In
Ireland, the GP held a position of real influence in the las gov't and
by god, didn't we all here feel the effects of that.
Basically, they're all arseholes who bumble along without any real
clue as to what they should be doing.

[1]In spite of what bull****e the Peak Oil deniers spout, I know there
will be an eventual end to the cheap energy we grew up with and to
dismiss that is the mark of a fool.

wrote in message
...

I sincerely hope we don't fall into the clutches of the Green Party in
the forthcoming years, as they're as bad in their own way as the
rotten selfish Tories

The Greens advocate Land Valuation Taxation and nio income tax. They are
worth voting for.

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 17:11:56 -0000, Doctor Drivel wrote:

I sincerely hope we don't fall into the clutches of the Green Party in
the forthcoming years, as they're as bad in their own way as the
rotten selfish Tories

The Greens advocate Land Valuation Taxation and nio income tax.

In what universe? If they got in, I can't see them throwing over a
main and vital source of gov't income.

They are worth voting for.

Not likely. I've had a taste of those ******s and never want to see
them in power - the only thing worse than megalomania is
self-righteous megalomania.

On 15/12/2011 12:14, wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 15:31:43 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

What a plonker. Boy racers regularly burnt out the shafts on 850s.

It was the CV joints - I know, I was there. A mate of mine was so used
to doing them on his rally car he reckoned about ten minutes a side or
somesuch.
They were ****, though.

Also, talking of CV joints, the ones on the Imps were dreadful -
especially aftermarket ones. Iirc, there was a fix for that; making
sure the replacement was from a particular source.

Imps were rear-engined, rear wheel drive and had swing axles like
triumph spitfires. AFAIK At the inboard end was a rubber doughnut
arrangement to allow the angular flexing, not a CV joint as we
now know of ??.

Andrew

On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 16:55:35 +0000, Andrew
wrote:

Imps were rear-engined, rear wheel drive and had swing axles like
triumph spitfires. AFAIK At the inboard end was a rubber doughnut
arrangement to allow the angular flexing, not a CV joint as we
now know of ??.

Indeed. Istr the only ones that worked long-term were GKN - there were
others on the market, but none as good - iirc, GKN were the OEM
suppliers.

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 17:11:56 -0000, Doctor Drivel wrote:

I sincerely hope we don't fall into the clutches of the Green Party in
the forthcoming years, as they're as bad in their own way as the
rotten selfish Tories

The Greens advocate Land Valuation Taxation and no income tax.

In what universe? If they got in, I can't see them throwing over a
main and vital source of gov't income.

Land Valuation Taxation brings in all the revenue HMG needs. A man on
£40,000 per year would be £6,000 better off.

They are worth voting for.

Not likely.

They got in, in Germany.

I've had a taste of those ******s and never want to see
them in power

I can't stand the Tories either.

wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 16:55:35 +0000, Andrew
wrote:

Imps were rear-engined, rear wheel drive and had swing axles like
triumph spitfires. AFAIK At the inboard end was a rubber doughnut
arrangement to allow the angular flexing, not a CV joint as we
now know of ??.

Indeed. Istr the only ones that worked long-term were GKN - there were
others on the market, but none as good - iirc, GKN were the OEM
suppliers.


I thought they had fully independent, not swing axle...

...and I was in fact right..

http://www.imps4ever.info/tech/suspense.html

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I thought they had fully independent, not swing axle...

Swing axle is fully independant. One wheel can move without the other.

The Imp rear suspension is semi trailing arm - just swing axle turned
round a bit.

--
*What happens if you get scared half to death twice? *

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I thought they had fully independent, not swing axle...

Swing axle is fully independant. One wheel can move without the other.

The Imp rear suspension is semi trailing arm - just swing axle turned
round a bit.

No- swing axle means that the wheel is bolted hard to an axle that swings.


Not an arm that swings, The imp rear suspension is not swing axle. The
wheel has a UJ between itself and the axle. That makes it fully
independent rear suspension in the parlance.

The front IS 'swing axle' however. except there are no axles as such..

The definitive feature of swing axle is that the wheel changes camber
under loading. The definitive feature of fully independent dual wishbone
or trailing arm is that it doesn't, or does so by design.

Mc McPherson struts are somewhat between the two.

Solid beam axles are another case entirely.They don't change camber but
carry high unsprung weight and a lot of inter axle coupling,.


I suggest you do more research before opening your mouth.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I thought they had fully independent, not swing axle...

Swing axle is fully independant. One wheel can move without the other.

The Imp rear suspension is semi trailing arm - just swing axle turned
round a bit.

No- swing axle means that the wheel is bolted hard to an axle that
swings.

So? Independant suspension requires one wheel to be able to move
independently of another. Which a swing axle allows. Prime example being
the Triumph Herald/Spitfire.


Not an arm that swings, The imp rear suspension is not swing axle. The
wheel has a UJ between itself and the axle. That makes it fully
independent rear suspension in the parlance.

Just a different design. But still independant.

The front IS 'swing axle' however. except there are no axles as such..

How do you define an axle?

The definitive feature of swing axle is that the wheel changes camber
under loading. The definitive feature of fully independent dual wishbone
or trailing arm is that it doesn't, or does so by design.

I'm afraid you're making up your own definition.

Mc McPherson struts are somewhat between the two.

No they're not.

Solid beam axles are another case entirely.They don't change camber but
carry high unsprung weight and a lot of inter axle coupling,.


I suggest you do more research before opening your mouth.

********. The only system which is more difficult to define is De Dion,
since the wheels are directly linked by the De Dion tube.

The only type of non independant suspension (in practice) is a beam axle.

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

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

In article ,
Huge wrote:
So? Independant suspension requires one wheel to be able to move
independently of another. Which a swing axle allows. Prime example
being the Triumph Herald/Spitfire.

Probably not that good an example, since the Herald has a transverse
leaf spring, which although solidly fixed above the diff, almost
certainly allows one wheel to affect the other, to an extent. I can't
find a diagram of the rear suspension of the Beetle, another swing
axler. However, there's a good picture of the rear suspension of the
Chevy Corvair here;

http://www.widman.biz/Corvair/Englis...-1026-full.jpg

Swing axle, fully independent.

Yes. Of course many suspension systems use anti-roll bars which negate to
some extent the independant movement of a wheel.

And the car that caused Ralph Nader to write "Unsafe at any speed".

Oh absolutely. Such uncontrolled and large camber change is never a good
thing.

--
*Gargling is a good way to see if your throat leaks.

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

So? Independant suspension requires one wheel to be able to move
independently of another. Which a swing axle allows. Prime example being
the Triumph Herald/Spitfire.

The Herald had a transverse spring which was bolted to the diff in the
centre.
The later Spitfires had a transverse spring which had a sliding mount on the
diff.
I would say that makes one of them independent and the other better.

dennis@home wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

So? Independant suspension requires one wheel to be able to move
independently of another. Which a swing axle allows. Prime example being
the Triumph Herald/Spitfire.

The Herald had a transverse spring which was bolted to the diff in the
centre.
The later Spitfires had a transverse spring which had a sliding mount on
the diff.
I would say that makes one of them independent and the other better.



never seen a 'sliding mount' on any spitfire ever.

On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 22:02:59 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

never seen a 'sliding mount' on any spitfire ever.

My mate's Herald had a sliding mount. It wasn't supposed to be, mind,
and it made acceleration and braking interesting.

In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

So? Independant suspension requires one wheel to be able to move
independently of another. Which a swing axle allows. Prime example being
the Triumph Herald/Spitfire.

The Herald had a transverse spring which was bolted to the diff in the
centre.
The later Spitfires had a transverse spring which had a sliding mount on
the diff.
I would say that makes one of them independent and the other better.

never seen a 'sliding mount' on any spitfire ever.

I'd guess he's talking about the "swing spring", though it's more pivoting
than "sliding".
http://www.canleyclassics.com/?xhtml...fodatabase.xsl
http://herald-tips-tricks.wikidot.co...and-tuck-under

In article ,
Alan Braggins wrote:
never seen a 'sliding mount' on any spitfire ever.

I'd guess he's talking about the "swing spring", though it's more
pivoting than "sliding".
http://www.canleyclassics.com/?xhtml...fodatabase.xsl
http://herald-tips-tricks.wikidot.co...and-tuck-under

No matter what you do, you're still going to get extreme camber angle
changes as the wheel moves up and down. Fitting a stronger anti-roll bar
may reduce the effects but will also affect the ride.

--
*Frankly, scallop, I don't give a clam

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