On 29/12/2011 14:23, John Williamson wrote:
On 29/12/2011 13:58, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Do you go 125mph for hours on end? Even idiot Clarkson was in awe of
the Tesla.

After the two they tested broke down? I think not.

He loved it right up to the point where both test cars broke down and he
found out that a recharge from flat takes 16 hours. Then he wasn't so
complimentary.

"LEGAL NOTICE: This programme is now the subject of legal proceedings
for defamation and malicious falsehood brought by Tesla Motors Ltd and
Tesla Motors Inc against the BBC"


Seems like Tesla's legal action has been 'laughed out of court' g
http://transmission.blogs.topgear.co...nless-amended/

or if you prefer

http://tinyurl.com/69gb9eu

Adrian

In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
Oh **** off!!! You are naive.

So why *were* so many union votes strangely unanimous?

Apart from committee meetings, I've never ever seen a unanimous vote
anywhere. As not everyone entitled to vote ever does.

--
*Succeed, in spite of management *

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

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
hugh ] wrote:
A bit like having ~15% of the workforce voting for a strike and
calling everyone out.


"Voting" was by show of hands with heavies in the
crowd to make sure everyone's hand went up.

Total ********. The very idea a few heavies could force the majority of
hairy arsed blokes to do something they didn't want to is laughable.

It wasn't the heavies in the crowd that forced people to vote

Oh **** off!!! You are naive.

So why *were* so many union votes strangely unanimous?

These loonies think the whole of the problems of the UK was unions - they
were fed an obvious right-wing corporate lie and sucked it in. Such
fools. Easy manipulation is what they are. Unions never did anything.
They have had power.

The problems of UK industry were not *all* to do with the unions. I'll
admit that I believe that a *lot* of the problems with our industry in the
past have been caused by unions, though, and it's been getting thsat way
again lately.

In the nationalised industries there was bad management, poor strategic
planning and union leaders who wanted the most pay and best conditions for
*their* workers and blow the rest of the country. The movie "I'm alright
Jack" is a humorous look at the union system of the time and not too
exaggerated. Listen to the lyrics of "Part of the Union" by the Strawbs
for another clue as to the attitudes of the workers in the large
industries in the 60s and 70s.

In some industries, the unions had lots of power, or are you too young to
remember turning up for your train or bus to work, only to find you
weren't going anywhere because the union leaders had called a wildcat
strike because there was no toilet paper in the signalbox loos or some
such excuse? Or going to your newsagent to find that the newspaper you
wanted wasn't available because the printers had walked out. Again.

All this changed almost overnight when Thatcher and the Tories passed laws
limiting the unions' powers. Labour have spent a fair amnount of time and
effort reversing many of these laws, so we now have more strikes than when
Labour last replaced the Tories.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.
-----------------------
Funny how people fall for the propaganda put out by the Tory press and Tory
radio stations like LBC. I remember in the past a shop steward holding an
international firm to ransom for higher pay for 747 pilots. He later rose to
become chairman of the Conservative party! I was also at a mass union
meeting at which the press were present. They were not interested in filming
any normal person only a known left wing person.
After seeing the press release on TV it was nothing like the real thing.
Robbie

In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
In the nationalised industries there was bad management, poor strategic
planning and union leaders who wanted the most pay and best conditions
for *their* workers and blow the rest of the country. The movie "I'm
alright Jack" is a humorous look at the union system of the time and not
too exaggerated. Listen to the lyrics of "Part of the Union" by the
Strawbs for another clue as to the attitudes of the workers in the large
industries in the 60s and 70s.

Pray tell what you think the purpose of a union is?
Or perhaps you think the CBI or whatever has the best interests of the
country at heart?

BTW, it's best to find out about unions by participating in them - not
take the views of others with axes to grind as gospel. Especially since
they always lie.

--
*Geeks shall inherit the earth *

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

In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
I would ask what you do if that industrial action results in improved
pay or conditions, etc. Do you turn them down?

No, but after my last experience with an all-union firm, I avoid such
companies. The last one I worked for had the worst pay and conditions in
the area for that industry.

You do realise you're giving entirely the opposite view that most appear
to have here - that unions are very successful at money grabbing?

From another point of view, I am supporting the union by taking the
same action and lose the same amount of pay that they do, so why should
I turn down the benefits, especially when the union don't offer help to
non-members? Which, again in the case of the last union firm I worked
for, was no help to me whatsoever.

Peculiar logic. ;-) However, a decent union (in the closed shop days) had
alternatives for those who are opposed to such things, like say
contributing the unions dues to a recognised charity.

But I'm not quite sure why you expect a union to help a non union member?

--
*Letting a cat out of the bag is easier than putting it back in *

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

In article ,
Roberts wrote:
Funny how people fall for the propaganda put out by the Tory press and
Tory radio stations like LBC. I remember in the past a shop steward
holding an international firm to ransom for higher pay for 747 pilots.

I'd love to know what that phrase actually means. The firm in question
could equally be said to be holding their employees to ransom. Both have
the alternatives to find new jobs or new employees.

He later rose to become chairman of the Conservative party! I was also
at a mass union meeting at which the press were present. They were not
interested in filming any normal person only a known left wing person.
After seeing the press release on TV it was nothing like the real thing.

Indeed. The meja are rarely interested in a balanced view of anything.

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

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

On Dec 29, 1:15*pm, John Williamson
wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
* *hugh ] wrote:
A bit like having ~15% of the workforce voting for a strike and
calling everyone out.

"Voting" was by show of hands with heavies in the
* crowd to make sure everyone's hand went up.

Total ********. The very idea a few heavies could force the majority of
hairy arsed blokes to do something they didn't want to is laughable.

It wasn't the heavies in the crowd that forced people to vote

Oh **** off!!! *You are naive.

So why *were* so many union votes strangely unanimous?

These loonies think the whole of the problems of the UK was unions -
they were fed an obvious right-wing corporate lie and sucked it in.
Such fools. Easy manipulation is what they are. *Unions never did
anything. They have had power.

The problems of UK industry were not *all* to do with the unions. I'll
admit that I believe that a *lot* of the problems with our industry in
the past have been caused by unions, though, and it's been getting thsat
way again lately.

In the nationalised industries there was bad management, poor strategic
planning and union leaders who wanted the most pay and best conditions
for *their* workers and blow the rest of the country. The movie "I'm
alright Jack" is a humorous look at the union system of the time and not
too exaggerated. Listen to the lyrics of "Part of the Union" by the
Strawbs for another clue as to the attitudes of the workers in the large
industries in the 60s and 70s.

In some industries, the unions had lots of power, or are you too young
to remember turning up for your train or bus to work, only to find you
weren't going anywhere because the union leaders had called a wildcat
strike because there was no toilet paper in the signalbox loos or some
such excuse? Or going to your newsagent to find that the newspaper you
wanted wasn't available because the printers had walked out. Again.

All this changed almost overnight when Thatcher and the Tories passed
laws limiting the unions' powers. Labour have spent a fair amnount of
time and effort reversing many of these laws, so we now have more
strikes than when Labour last replaced the Tories.

Which laws have they reversed?

In article ,
hugh ] wrote:
Well, you might ask what percentage of those eligible to vote in any
election vote for a particular party.

About 70% of the electorate turn out and the one who gets the most (not
necessarily the majority) wins.

And this for the most important job - running the country. So why all the
drama about a minor thing like a union?

It always seems strange to me that politicians find it wrong when
there's not an absolute majority for industrial action - yet happily
take their seat when very very few - if any - have had the majority
voting for them.

Not comparable situations IMO

Indeed. What goes on between a company and its workforce should be left to
them.

--
*Santa's helpers are subordinate clauses*

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

On 29/12/2011 16:07, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
John wrote:
I would ask what you do if that industrial action results in improved
pay or conditions, etc. Do you turn them down?

No, but after my last experience with an all-union firm, I avoid such
companies. The last one I worked for had the worst pay and conditions in
the area for that industry.

You do realise you're giving entirely the opposite view that most appear
to have here - that unions are very successful at money grabbing?

Yes. But it's from my own personal experience, not from just listening
to others. I'll freely admit that unions can be useful in equalising the
balance of power between labour and capital, given good will and
balanced negotiating skills on both sides, especially in companies where
the boss can't possibly know each worker personally.

From another point of view, I am supporting the union by taking the
same action and lose the same amount of pay that they do, so why should
I turn down the benefits, especially when the union don't offer help to
non-members? Which, again in the case of the last union firm I worked
for, was no help to me whatsoever.

Peculiar logic. ;-) However, a decent union (in the closed shop days) had
alternatives for those who are opposed to such things, like say
contributing the unions dues to a recognised charity.

It works for me, and it worked for my Dad in the 60s. As for donating
what I would pay to the union to other causes, why? If I have to pay the
dues anyway, why not get whatever benefits are available? Unless they
were willing to help me if I did pay into a charity, which I doubt very
much. It sounds like a scheme where you have to pay a fine to keep on
working, to me.

But I'm not quite sure why you expect a union to help a non union member?

I didn't. I don't.

It irked me that the unions didn't help noticeably when I *was* a
member, either. (On the railways and at a private bus company). Where I
am now, the union is trying to get enough members so that it has to be
recognised, and there's talk of a strike for more pay. We'll see what
happens over the next few months. The last walkout (Over a disciplinary
matter) got the union members precisely nothing, apart from being
noticed as a stroppy lot by the management.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

[Snip]

But I'm not quite sure why you expect a union to help a non union member?

Interestingly, after the BBC Legionella outbreak the main union (BECTU)
offered its legal services to all who had been affectted. This turned out
to be a mixed blessing. The union's lawyer advised accepting the very
first offer made by the BBC. I felt the offer was far too low and wrote to
say so. I got a fairly rude letter back. Unfortunately for the lawyer, a
similar rude letter was sent to a member of the union's NEC (another
victim). We were then advised to reject the first offer. A significantly
increased offer was made later. Unfortunately, those who were in most need
of the compensation had done as their union lawyer said originally and
accepted the original offer.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 01:33:17 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

The weight of the on board capacitors would in itself be an energy
store (kinetic energy).

And how do they get up to speed - magic pixie beans?

"charles" wrote in message
...

and how long do I have to spend at a recharging point?

With the Toshiba batteries, 80% recharge in a few minutes. Total recharge no
more than lining up at petrol pumps.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
Steve Walker wrote:
On 28/12/2011 07:29, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"hugh" ] wrote in message
...

"Voting" was by show of hands with heavies in the
crowd to make sure everyone's hand went up.

You made that up.

No he didn't. That was one of the reasons for changing to postal voting.

Of course the heavies still rule at conference.

Not this brainwashed nut again.

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
hugh ] wrote:
A bit like having ~15% of the workforce voting for a strike and
calling everyone out.


"Voting" was by show of hands with heavies in the
crowd to make sure everyone's hand went up.

Total ********. The very idea a few heavies could force the majority of
hairy arsed blokes to do something they didn't want to is laughable.

It wasn't the heavies in the crowd that forced people to vote

Oh **** off!!! You are naive.

So why *were* so many union votes strangely unanimous?

These loonies think the whole of the problems of the UK was unions - they
were fed an obvious right-wing corporate lie and sucked it in. Such
fools. Easy manipulation is what they are. Unions never did anything.
They have had no power.

The problems of UK industry were not *all* to do with the unions.

None of it was to do with unions. Never was. I notice no one blamed them
for the Credit Crunch. I'm sure they were trying to find an angle so the
gullible like yourself would suck it in.

In the nationalised industries there was bad management, poor strategic
planning and union leaders

The brainwashing keeps surfacing.

All this changed almost overnight when Thatcher and the Tories passed laws
limiting the unions' powers.

People like you are so dumb, uninformed and naive. Thatcher and Reagan
off-shored manufacturing to rig the free-market. They rigged LABOUR! Three
factors of production:

1. LAND (and resources)
2. LABOUR
3. CAPITAL

Wealth comes from all three when applied at once.

The free-market works well when these are NOT rigged. Idiot Thatcher rigged
LABOUR in the above. We are still suffering the effects of the idiot now.
Thatcher & Reagan were indirectly responsible for the CC. The devastation
of the USA Rust Belt and the industrial hearts of the UK was a result of
those two fools - yet the naive followed them

Look at an overview of how the current situation occurred .Thatcher and
Reagan are clearly responsible. They were so successful in reducing LABOUR
costs by off-shoring manufacturing to China, that the demand fell, so they
went for easy credit to create demand. Any Tom, Dick & Harry could get a
pile of Credit Cards.

Look:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOP2V_np2c0

In message ,
lid writes

"hugh" ] wrote in message
news
In message ,
writes

"hugh" ] wrote in message
...

You do seem to have an unhealthy obsession with the Daily mail.

The Torygraph, Sun, Times, etc are all the same.


Oh no a ****ing Guardian reader. That explains all the whinging

So, a confirmed idiotic, brainwashed Murdoch reading Tory voter. You
just don't know. You really don't know.
You know I'm really worried about your mental health.
--
hugh

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Do you go 125mph for hours on end? Even idiot Clarkson was in awe of
the Tesla.

After the two they tested broke down? I think not.

Again for fools: "Even idiot Clarkson was in awe of the Tesla."

In message ,
lid writes

"hugh" ] wrote in message
...
In message ,
writes

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...
In article , Doctor Drivel
wrote:

"Steve Walker" wrote in
message ...
On 28/12/2011 07:29, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"hugh" ] wrote in message
...

"Voting" was by show of hands with heavies in the
crowd to make sure everyone's hand went up.

You made that up.

No he didn't. That was one of the reasons for changing to postal
voting.

"heavies in the crowd" **** off.

Whether there were actual heavies there, drivel, is beside the
point. The fact is, as we know from watching the telly, that the
vote was show of hands, done, therefore, in public.

And if over 50% the hands won. Simple. Cameron is ruling and only
about 20% of those eligible to vote voted for him.

snip drivel

No-one vote for Cameron to rule.

Uh!
FFS don't you understand the fundamentals of British democracy?
--
hugh

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Steve Firth wrote:
No he didn't. That was one of the reasons for changing to postal
voting.

Of course the heavies still rule at conference. I know an elderly female
shop steward who was bullied mercilessly by the heavies because she
dared to vote as instructed by her members and not according to the
diktat of committee members.

Were you there to see it happening?

By debating the matter with these idiots it makes them believe they have a
case.

In message ,
lid writes

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
hugh ] wrote:
A bit like having ~15% of the workforce voting for a strike and
calling everyone out.


"Voting" was by show of hands with heavies in the
crowd to make sure everyone's hand went up.

Total ********. The very idea a few heavies could force the majority of
hairy arsed blokes to do something they didn't want to is laughable.

It wasn't the heavies in the crowd that forced people to vote

Oh **** off!!! You are naive.

These loonies think the whole of the problems of the UK was unions -
they were fed an obvious right-wing corporate lie and sucked it in.
Such fools. Easy manipulation is what they are. Unions never did
anything. They have had power.

Instead of replying to the same post twice why don't you learn to think
before you reply. Then yo might just possibly put together something
that is at least readable if not sensible.
--
hugh

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
Oh **** off!!! You are naive.

So why *were* so many union votes strangely unanimous?

Apart from committee meetings, I've never ever seen a unanimous vote
anywhere. As not everyone entitled to vote ever does.

We are talking about the mass meetings of the 60s and early seventies
and voting was by show of hands.
--
hugh

"hugh" ] wrote in message
news
In message ,
lid writes

"hugh" ] wrote in message
news
In message ,
lid writes

"hugh" ] wrote in message
...

You do seem to have an unhealthy obsession with the Daily mail.

The Torygraph, Sun, Times, etc are all the same.


Oh no a ****ing Guardian reader. That explains all the whinging

So, a confirmed idiotic, brainwashed Murdoch reading Tory voter. You just
don't know. You really don't know.

You know I'm really worried about your mental health.

You are only worried about yourself. You are naive to think you can act
outside of society.

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
hugh ] wrote:
I take it you've never been in a union? The idea that a few trouble
makers can 'lead' the majority like sheep is laughable.

I was in Coventry in the 60s. I witnessed it at first hand. You are
extremely naive in your views on what agitators can achieve.

You 'witnessed' it from inside the union? If so, why didn't you do
something about it?

Don't jump to conclusions
If from outside, your views will just be that of any other so called
observer like the meja.

Not necessarily.
However, the world is a very different place from the '60s. Mass
communication has moved on since then.

Indeed but this particular part of the discussion was about the
influence or otherwise of the unions on the poor performance ad ultimate
demise of much manufacturing in Britain in the 60s and 70s.

What it has to do with green public transport I'm not quite sure now.
--
hugh

In message ,
lid writes

"hugh" ] wrote in message
...
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
hugh ] wrote:
Sadly all too common. But when a 'them and us' situation develops, it's
usually the fault of the management.

Unless, as was the case in the motor industry in the 60s the
unions have been infiltrated by communists whose avowed intent is
to ruin the company. I take it you've never been in a union? The
idea that a few trouble makers can 'lead' the majority like sheep is laughable.

It is not.

I can recommend a good book -The Parallel Lives of Hitler and Stalin.
Fascinating how two men rose to dictatorial power by completely
different approaches.


The British establishement are cleverr. They do it by very different
means. Tony Benn.

By the end of the 1970s, Benn had migrated to the left-wing of the
Labour Party. He attributed this political shift to his experience as a
Cabinet Minister in the 1964-1970 Labour Government. Benn wrote:

"As a minister, I experienced the power of industrialists and bankers
to get their way by use of the crudest form of economic pressure, even
blackmail, against a Labour Government. Compared to this, the pressure
brought to bear in industrial disputes is minuscule. This power was
revealed even more clearly in 1976 when the IMF secured cuts in our
public expenditure. These lessons led me to the conclusion that the UK
is only superficially governed by MPs and the voters who elect
them.Parliamentary democracy is, in truth, little more than a means of
securing a periodical change in the management team, which is then
allowed to preside over a system that remains in essence intact. If the
British people were ever to ask themselves what power they truly
enjoyed under our political system they would be amazed to discover how
little it is, and some new Chartist agitation might be born and might
quickly gather momentum."

Note:
"These lessons led me to the conclusion that the UK is only
superficially governed by MPs and the voters who elect
them.Parliamentary democracy is, in truth, little more than a means of
securing a periodical change in the management team, which is then
allowed to preside over a system that remains in essence intact."





So the word of Benn is irrefutable?

Benn was sore because he lost his argument with Healey over North Sea
Oil.
--
hugh

In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"charles" wrote in message
...

and how long do I have to spend at a recharging point?

With the Toshiba batteries, 80% recharge in a few minutes. Total recharge
no more than lining up at petrol pumps.

Let us assume an engine giving about 50BHP - It's a small car. That is 50
x 746 watts = 37.3KW.

Run for 2 hours, so demand is 75kWh and you are going to put 80% of that
(60kWh) back into the battery in a few minutes. A 200v battery would need a
charging current of 300A for an hour. Even if the engine is only 5BHP,
you'd need 300Amps to charge in a few minutes.

or is my maths terribly wrong somewhere?

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

On 29/12/2011 17:13, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"charles" wrote in message
...

and how long do I have to spend at a recharging point?

With the Toshiba batteries, 80% recharge in a few minutes. Total
recharge no more than lining up at petrol pumps.

So, in the time it takes me to put enough liquid fuel into my fuel tank
to drive a few hundred miles, I can put enough electricity into the
battery to drive a few dozen. Or, to put it another way, I go to the
petrol station every couple of weeks, or charge the car every night.
This does, of course, ignore the cost and incovenience to society of
having to install a grid capable of supplying many megawatts to even a
small charging station, for your rapid charging option.

When I dig past the sales patter, it seems that to put enough charge
into most electric cars to drive for an hour, it takes at least four to
recharge it using normally available supplies. Forty miles in a G-Whiz
takes all night to prepare for, using a standard 13A socket.

Oh, and the Toshiba batteries (80% charge in a minute) you mention are
only used in handheld devices at the moment, the technology may well not
be scalable for traction use, and to charge a normal size of car battery
pack at that rate would require a power supply of up to 300 megawatts
per car.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article
,
harry wrote:
I take it you've never been in a union? The idea that a few trouble
makers can 'lead' the majority like sheep is laughable.


The "no" voters tend just not to vote. That's when the problem arises.

Given everything these days is done by postal voting, that's up to them.

Yes it is, but at the same time decisions to take strike action
especially in the public sector is a matter in which we all have an
interest.

A responsible trade union leadership should be concerned as to why for
example such a small proportion of their membership bothers to vote on
an issue such as their pension which according to the union leadership
is of such vital importance.
--
hugh

In message , charles
writes
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Or anyone who enjoys driving.

If you enjoy FAST driving get a Tesla.

Oh indeed.

Yes indeed.

Provided your idea of fast driving is in very short bursts.

Do you go 125mph for hours on end? Even idiot Clarkson was in awe of the
Tesla.

As like any other electric car make high
demands of it and the range is
laughable.

200 miles. Even more with the latest batteries.
Zooooooooooooooooooom


so when I drive to Scotland (400ish miles), does this mean I have to spend
a night on the way while the battery is recharged?

And another one on the way back:-)
--
hugh

On 29/12/2011 17:28, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Do you go 125mph for hours on end? Even idiot Clarkson was in awe of
the Tesla.

After the two they tested broke down? I think not.

Again for fools: "Even idiot Clarkson was in awe of the Tesla."

Possibly until he drove it.

You *have* watched the whole review, haven't you? Including the bits
where Clarkson notes that *both* test vehicles failed during the test?
And where he says that a trip from the studios to Scotland would take
two or three *days* in the Tesla due to the limited range and slow
recharging, as against a few hours in the Lotus Elise it's based on?

Just to remind you:-

http://www.topgear.com/uk/videos/electric-shocker

Has it in the man's own (scripted) words.

He loved the acceleration, but that's the *only* thing he was
complimentary about. He wasn't keen on the handling, he hated the
recharge speed, and the way that the motor overheated during the testing.

Not quite "in awe" then...

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 29/12/2011 17:28, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Do you go 125mph for hours on end? Even idiot Clarkson was in awe of
the Tesla.

After the two they tested broke down? I think not.

Again for fools: "Even idiot Clarkson was in awe of the Tesla."

Possibly until he drove it.

When driving it. He was screeching about the acceleration.

You *have* watched the whole review, haven't you? Including the bits where
Clarkson notes that *both* test vehicles failed during the test?

The point was not the quality of manufacture, it was the performance.

And where he says that a trip from the studios to Scotland would take two
or three *days* in the Tesla due to the limited range and slow recharging,
as against a few hours in the Lotus Elise it's based on?

It would act very differently using the new Toshiba batteries with charging
points at service stations. I notice the brainwashed idiots never mention
them, as they never mention the Chevy Volt either.

On 29/12/2011 17:37, hugh wrote:
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
Oh **** off!!! You are naive.

So why *were* so many union votes strangely unanimous?

Apart from committee meetings, I've never ever seen a unanimous vote
anywhere. As not everyone entitled to vote ever does.

We are talking about the mass meetings of the 60s and early seventies
and voting was by show of hands.

Just watch the newsreels of the day. You don't see many hands down, and
none against.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

"hugh" ] wrote in message
...

A responsible trade union leadership

A responsible electorate would want full political PR then the Tories would
be blown into oblivion.

"hugh" ] wrote in message
...

about the mass meetings of the 60s and early seventies and voting was by
show of hands.

Which was better than the first past the post system we have for
Westminster. All that does is ensure the unrepresentative Tories get into
power.

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

I would ask what you do if that industrial action results in improved pay
or conditions, etc. Do you turn them down?

The unions demand sole rights to negotiate pay and conditions so you can't
turn them down.
Do you know anything about unions?
I suggest you try being a part of one before you comment more.

On 29/12/2011 11:56, Doctor Drivel wrote:
Probably. But if you do that trip regularly you would not uses a fun
car like the Tesla, you would use the new Ampera. Using Tosh batteries
and recharge points at service stations would get to Scotland and back
no probs. Sports cars are merely fun cars - nothing else.

Get it? I doubt it?

It's two years now since my wife and I went on a tour of Scotland in a
sports car. Or perhaps we should call it a GT.

Last year we drove down to the Loire Valley. The year before Scotland
it was the Picos de Europa, and before that across to the German border.
A _lot_ of 200 mile days.

Some of the places we stayed at will never have charging facilities.
Too remote, not enough copper.

And the Ampera won't be as much fun.

Andy

On 29/12/2011 17:13, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"charles" wrote in message
...

and how long do I have to spend at a recharging point?

With the Toshiba batteries, 80% recharge in a few minutes. Total
recharge no more than lining up at petrol pumps.

How many is a few minutes? What's that in watts? And how much power
needs to be delivered to the charging station to do half a dozen cars at
once?

Andy

charles wrote:
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"charles" wrote in message
...

and how long do I have to spend at a recharging point?

With the Toshiba batteries, 80% recharge in a few minutes. Total
recharge no more than lining up at petrol pumps.

Let us assume an engine giving about 50BHP - It's a small car. That
is 50 x 746 watts = 37.3KW.

Run for 2 hours, so demand is 75kWh and you are going to put 80% of
that (60kWh) back into the battery in a few minutes. A 200v battery
would need a charging current of 300A for an hour. Even if the
engine is only 5BHP, you'd need 300Amps to charge in a few minutes.

or is my maths terribly wrong somewhere?

You are forgetting that drivels only experience of electricity is ECT.

--
Adam

"hugh" ] wrote in message
...
In message ,
lid writes

"hugh" ] wrote in message
...
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
hugh ] wrote:
Sadly all too common. But when a 'them and us' situation develops,
it's
usually the fault of the management.

Unless, as was the case in the motor industry in the 60s the unions
have been infiltrated by communists whose avowed intent is to ruin
the company. I take it you've never been in a union? The idea that
a few trouble makers can 'lead' the majority like sheep is
laughable.

It is not.

I can recommend a good book -The Parallel Lives of Hitler and Stalin.
Fascinating how two men rose to dictatorial power by completely
different approaches.


The British establishement are cleverr. They do it by very different
means. Tony Benn.

By the end of the 1970s, Benn had migrated to the left-wing of the Labour
Party. He attributed this political shift to his experience as a Cabinet
Minister in the 1964-1970 Labour Government. Benn wrote:

"As a minister, I experienced the power of industrialists and bankers to
get their way by use of the crudest form of economic pressure, even
blackmail, against a Labour Government. Compared to this, the pressure
brought to bear in industrial disputes is minuscule. This power was
revealed even more clearly in 1976 when the IMF secured cuts in our public
expenditure. These lessons led me to the conclusion that the UK is only
superficially governed by MPs and the voters who elect them.Parliamentary
democracy is, in truth, little more than a means of securing a periodical
change in the management team, which is then allowed to preside over a
system that remains in essence intact. If the British people were ever to
ask themselves what power they truly enjoyed under our political system
they would be amazed to discover how little it is, and some new Chartist
agitation might be born and might quickly gather momentum."

Note:
"These lessons led me to the conclusion that the UK is only superficially
governed by MPs and the voters who elect them.Parliamentary democracy is,
in truth, little more than a means of securing a periodical change in the
management team, which is then allowed to preside over a system that
remains in essence intact."

So the word of Benn is irrefutable?

I would say so, yes.

Benn was sore because he lost his argument with Healey over North Sea

You are silly.

Ben says that only of the poor got out and voted for those who present their
interest would matters change,. They demoralised. Michael Moore took this
on board and had a get and vote campaign in the USA.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnserZOf1-4

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"charles" wrote in message
...

and how long do I have to spend at a recharging point?

With the Toshiba batteries, 80% recharge in a few minutes. Total recharge
no more than lining up at petrol pumps.

Let us assume

Do not assume. Find out.

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 29/12/2011 17:13, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"charles" wrote in message
...

and how long do I have to spend at a recharging point?

With the Toshiba batteries, 80% recharge in a few minutes. Total
recharge no more than lining up at petrol pumps.

So, in the time it takes me to put enough liquid fuel into my fuel tank to
drive a few hundred miles, I can put enough electricity into the battery
to drive a few dozen.

Dope, you can drive a few hundred miles. Soepeopel are so thick!

Oh, and the Toshiba batteries (80% charge in a minute) you mention are
only used in handheld devices at the moment, the technology may well not
be scalable for traction use,

Dope, I gave the like to Toshiba who are making the plants for auto use.

STOP MAKING THINGS UP

"John Williamson" wrote in message
...
On 29/12/2011 17:37, hugh wrote:
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
Oh **** off!!! You are naive.

So why *were* so many union votes strangely unanimous?

Apart from committee meetings, I've never ever seen a unanimous vote
anywhere. As not everyone entitled to vote ever does.

We are talking about the mass meetings of the 60s and early seventies
and voting was by show of hands.

Just watch the newsreels of the day. You don't see many hands down, and
none against.

So 5000 thugs with guns in the backs of another 5000 made the vote. YOU are
THICK!