"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 18/09/2012 18:23, charles wrote:
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
charles wrote:
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
charles wrote:
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
John Williamson wrote:

It allegedly takes a Nissan Leaf to 80% charge in 30 minutes.

The New Toshiba batteries can do 80% charge in 3 mins.

from what size of supply? Certainly not a domestic 13A one.

Again....The New Toshiba batteries can do 80% charge in 3 mins.
Have you got that yet?

yes, I got that.

Fantastic. It took two goes.

no, it only took one. but you have snipped my question to you. Presumably
because you can't answer it.

Dribble does not like numbers, they lay waste to his claims!

This man is a Chav.

In message , Tim
Streater writes
In article

rg,
Steve Firth wrote:

John Williamson wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:
"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
Andy Champ wrote:

CO2 most definitely is toxic.
No, not in the slightest.

(Not very toxic, you can take a few
percent).
It's not toxic at all.
Thicko, it is toxic to the atmosphere.
Not even that you lame brained disappointment to your parents. The
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published
by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
toxic [?t?ks?k]
adj
1. of, relating to, or caused by a toxin or poison; poisonous
2. (Medicine / Pathology) harmful or deadly
[from medical Latin toxicus, from Latin toxicum poison, from Greek
toxikon (pharmakon) (poison) used on arrows, from toxon arrow]
(Definition 2) CO2 is harmful or deadly to most animal life when
concentration in the breathing gas is excessive. Therefore, it is toxic.
Admittedly, not as toxic as a lot of other gases, including carbon
monoxide, but still toxic.
No, you are wrong. CO2 is not toxic. By your argument a pillow or a
knife
ate both toxic. CO2 is an asphyxiant, remove it in time and the
subject recovers. It has no
long term metabic effect. Relying upon a dictionary for medical
knowledge, other than a medical
dictionary, is fraught with problems. Not least that dictionary compilers
have no knowledge of chemistry, toxicology or medicine.

Quite. Toxic means you die without the option.

It's just a word thrown around for shock effect by ignorant toads like
drivel.

Drivel - toxicity level - high

after a couple of his posts most people lose the will to live

--
geoff

In message , polygonum
writes
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 17:58:52 +0100, Steve Firth
wrote:

polygonum wrote:

[snip]

This sums up as I see it:

No, the following sums it up as a company that sells CO2 sensors wishes
to see it and that happened to agree with your prejudices.

"Carbon dioxide is a toxic gas which is odourless and colourless. Rising
levels of carbon dioxide affect the human body, but what level is
dangerous and how do you know you are suffering from carbon Dioxide
poisoning?

You won't ever suffer from carbon dioxide poisoning. It's not possible.

Carbon dioxide is 'not just an asphyxiant'."

That last statement with no basis in fact.

http://www.analox.net/carbon-dioxide-dangers.php

Yes, perhaps you should have read all of it:

"The longer the exposure and the higher the level of carbon dioxide the
quicker *suffocation* occurs."

Note that *suffocation*. So according to you and that ****witted
web****e a pillow is toxic.

I did read all of it. Some, indeed many, people would die long before
the levels reached suffocation level. Even if the level of oxygen is
maintained at normal atmospheric concentration. And not from the lack
of oxygen but from the effects of the carbon dioxide on their systems.
Is that not a toxic effect?

So, what exactly, are these toxic effects?

--
geoff

"harry" wrote in message
...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel_h...eight_concerns

It concluded there were no concerns in unsprung weight.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Can you give some details of it's fuel efficiency versus similar
helicopters with other types of engines? No? What a surprise.

The Wankle engine - same as other two stroke designs

Oh my God, the senility has really set in. The Wankel is a 4 stroke
cycle. Shame isn't it. How sad.

Google must have been

This man is senile.

On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 14:36:16 +0100 Doctor Drivel wrote :
Route 96, on which these trams run, is every six minutes at peak
times.

Half the size then they can run every 3 minutes.

Twice as many drivers required

But running large trains during the day mean infrequent services. Some
detach cars and run more frequent services.

If a rapid-transit urban railway has frequent services people use it

True: our airport express bus runs every ten minutes so you don't need a
timetable and there's a recognition that this is the ideal for trains,
trams and buses. But it would come at a cost.

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia www.greentram.com

"Andy Champ" wrote in message
. uk...
On 19/09/2012 13:03, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
The Wankle engine - same as other two stroke designs - suffers from poor
'cylinder' filling and evacuation.

Dunno what this "Wankle" engine is, but the Wankel is a 4-stroke (if
"stroke" is the right word for a rotor) Separate suck-squeeze-bang-blow.

He can't figure that out at his age.

In message , Doctor Drivel
writes

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

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
Andy Champ wrote:

CO2 most definitely is toxic.

No, not in the slightest.

(Not very toxic, you can take a few
percent).

It's not toxic at all.

Thicko, it is toxic to the atmosphere.

A completely meaningless comment.

Knobhead, Again, " it is toxic to the atmosphere".


The atmosphere itself has no concept of toxicity

CO2 is absolutely necessary for most plants to survive

and it's an absolutely necessary constituent of beer


--
geoff

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Andy Champ wrote:
On 19/09/2012 13:03, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
The Wankle engine - same as other two stroke designs - suffers from
poor 'cylinder' filling and evacuation.

Dunno what this "Wankle" engine is, but the Wankel is a 4-stroke (if
"stroke" is the right word for a rotor) Separate suck-squeeze-bang-blow.

Quite. If you check my post immediately after that one you'll see I meant
same as two stroke designs. Dunno how the 'other' got in there. ;-)
Basically, the Wankle neither charges or evacuates as well as a piston
four stroke.

It will do with a blower or turbo.

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
In article , Doctor Drivel invalid@not-
for-mail.invalid scribeth thus

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

The one thing you need on generators is the ability to run long periods
without breaking. Wankel engines wore the seals out in a few hundred
hours
if that.

Oh no! He thinks it is the 1960/70s again. Not that old one. The seal
problem was solved decades ago. The Russians have a design that has the
seal in the engine body, which can easily be replaced by removing a
plate -
DIY job. This shows his age and state of mind.

If they are as good as that any reason they haven't made a re
introduction to automotive in more recent years?..

The same reason we will have highly inefficient piston engines.
Corporations run matters.

In article ,
Tony Bryer wrote:
True: our airport express bus runs every ten minutes so you don't need a
timetable and there's a recognition that this is the ideal for trains,
trams and buses. But it would come at a cost.

It's nigh on impossible to have a town bus service run to time. Unless you
set the journey times at the worst possible, and have it hanging around
every other stop when the traffic is light.

--
*The colder the X-ray table, the more of your body is required on it *

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
The one thing you need on generators is the ability to run long
periods without breaking. Wankel engines wore the seals out in a few
hundred hours if that.

Oh no! He thinks it is the 1960/70s again. Not that old one. The seal
problem was solved decades ago. The Russians have a design that has
the seal in the engine body, which can easily be replaced by removing
a plate - DIY job. This shows his age and state of mind.

If they are as good as that any reason they haven't made a re
introduction to automotive in more recent years?..

It's mainly because their fuel efficiency is, and always will be, poor.

This idiot is at it gain. The fuel consumption is not poor when run at a
constant speed high revs at it "sweet spot".

But he is senile.

harry wrote:
On Sep 19, 9:51 pm, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:
tony sayer wrote:
In article , Doctor Drivel invalid@not-
for-mail.invalid scribeth thus
Andy Champ wrote:
On 15/09/2012 16:22, Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Andy Champ" wrote in message
. uk...
On 11/09/2012 23:53, Doctor Drivel wrote:
You could have a 10 year old car and slap in a new battery set
and it is transformed.

I have a ten year old car. I haven't had to buy a new engine,
gearbox, or anything else big.

You must pay attention. The car can be "transformed". Replacing
your auto box will cost about the same as battery set but the car
is not transformed, just still the same as it was.

Oh, I thought you meant it was transformed from a dying heap back
to the equivalent of a new model. What does the new battery do
that the original didn't?

Pay attention at the back!. Batteries are improving all the time.
In 12 years time a new battery set will get the car a lot further
than the current crop. Economy will be vastly improved.

Incidentally while one day I'm sure I'll meet an auto box that can
do a better job than me I haven't yet. The Prius may well have
such a transmission - but it's damned expensive.

The Prius is an old design, it is 15 years old now. Mine is still
superb to drive.

Three people I know of who bought them no longer have them as they
"outgrew" the effective range..

Uh. They run on petrol. They cannot be charged from a plug. Nor un
less you get a conversion done.





The Vaux' Ampera is vastly superior and the new cars predicated to
be out using the small, light, Lotus 1200cc 3 cyl' genny engine
(range extender) running at its efficient constant speed "sweet
spot" will be even better.

Audi are looking into using a very small Wankel engine as a range
extender genny slapped under the boot. For the rare times it will
be used it is fine. Wankels are efficient running at their constant
high speed "sweet spot", so come into their own as a genny. The
very small size and no vibration is also a great major advantage.

This is an interesting subject and the electric motor transmission
is excellent just need to get that prime mover power sorted first
and that it seems .. isn't going to be that easy..

And thats the rub. Where is the prime power coming from as at the
moment we are using an Internal Combustion engine using fossil fuel
to make the difference between the stored electric motive energy
made using mainly fossil and the inefficiencies of doing that..
I think the real breakthrough is yet to come..

The breakthrough is here. The terrorist corporations will not
implement it. And senile people believe what they say.- Hide quoted
text -

The new ones are plug-in hybrids. On short journeys, the engine
doesn't start.
Try to keep up Drivel.

Not another senile one.

In message , Steve Firth
writes
John Williamson wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
harry wrote:

On Sep 21, 6:00 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
harry wrote:
I see they have given up on it too. Wonder why?
Because hydrogen is not a fuel. Because hydrogen needs heavy containment
vessels. Because petrol, alcohol and diesel oil are all better fuels.

**** but you're thick.
Hydrogen is not a fuel??????????????

Correct. Hydrogen is not a fuel.

And which obscure dictionary did you read to come up with that theory?

Unlike you I don't rely on ****poor dictionary definitions.

It might not be a primary fuel, but the Yanks in the 1960s thought it
and oxygen made a darn good fuel for shoving a rocket into orbit.

Hydrogen is a fuel in the same way that a battery is a fuel. You get
less out than you put in. If you need an incredibly large specific
impulse for a given weight you may well think that the losses are worth
the conversion. However unless you are powering a rocket or a SABRE
engine all you are doing is ****ing fuel up against the wall in order to
create hydrogen.

But harry's got some solar panels
--
geoff

In message , polygonum
writes
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 19:29:04 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

tony sayer wrote:
Why are you ignoring wind?
Because its bloody useless in practice..



Tidal, Wave, Geothermal, Hydro electric are the important ones
remaining.
Result in sod all of the power we need...
--
Tony Sayer- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Norway runs on around 90% hydro I believe.
Brazil, Venezuela, Egypt, Zambia, China and the USA have huge hydro
electric power stations.
And where can we put ours then;?...
#
I think the theory is you buil a 1000 ft dam all around Scotland and
flood it.

Seems like a plan. Especially if you don't empty the people out first.


I thought it might be easier to damn the Irish sea and the channel...

Well, Harry's bull**** has blocked his WC, that's a start

--
geoff

Andy Burns wrote:
Doctor Drivel wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

You'd think with Mazda effectively canning rotary engines (or at
least pressing pause)

The RX8 is still made.

They might be flogging off the last few sitting on the dock-side or in
showrooms, but they haven't made them for over a year ...

http://www.autoweek.com/article/2011...NEWS/110829973

Exactly what I was telling but the senile ones sent many silly posts.

http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1...says-mazda-ceo

We've known for a while that Mazda was planning to reinvent the rotary
engine as a range-extender for an electric car, but now the automaker's CEO
has confirmed the plans. Speaking with reporters at this week's2012 Moscow
Auto Show, Mazda CEO Takashi Yamanouchi reaffirmed his company's commitment
to the rotary engine and said there were plans to launch an extended-range
vehicle with a rotary engine as early as next year.

Mazda's last car to be fitted with a rotary engine was the RX-8 sports car,
which ended production earlier this year. The RX-8 used its rotary engine to
power its wheels, though this proved to be a rather inefficient form of
propulsion.

For its return, the rotary will be used solely to charge a battery, which
will then power an electric motor driving the wheels of whichever car it is
fitted to. There have been reports that Mazda was testing a rotary
extended-range vehicle that ran on hydrogen, though any production version
is likely to use regular gasoline.

Rotaries, like most internal combustion engines, are most efficient when
they maintain a steady rpm level. Acting as a range extender would allow the
engine to operate at a constant rpm.

"The rotary has very good dynamic performance, but if you accelerate and
brake a lot there are efficiency disadvantages," Yamanouchi explained to
Autocar. "The range extender overcomes that. We can keep it spinning at its
most efficient 2,000 rpm while also taking advantage of its [compact] size."

It's not clear yet what type of vehicle Mazda will launch its new rotary
extended-range drivetrain in.

Note, Mazda wasn't the first to proceed down the rotary extended-range
development path. Instead, it was Audi that showed the rotary-packing A1
e-tron concept at the 2010 Geneva Motor Show. That allegedly led to talks
between Audi and Mazda, and rumors that Mazda was developing a
special-purpose rotary engine for the Audi A1 e-tron. While Audi chose to
forgo a rotary for its eventual road-going A1 e-tron, it appears Mazda won't
doing the same.

Tony Bryer wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 14:36:16 +0100 Doctor Drivel wrote :
Route 96, on which these trams run, is every six minutes at peak
times.

Half the size then they can run every 3 minutes.

Twice as many drivers required

But more people using them over the day.

But running large trains during the day mean infrequent services.
Some detach cars and run more frequent services.

If a rapid-transit urban railway has frequent services people use it

True: our airport express bus runs every ten minutes so you don't
need a timetable and there's a recognition that this is the ideal for
trains, trams and buses. But it would come at a cost.

Anything less than 15 minutes means a time table is not needed. Have trains
every 5 mins and people will just hop on and off at will.

On 12/09/2012 08:41, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message
,
harry writes
On Sep 11, 9:47 pm, Bill Wright wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
not at the pint of contact.

Only an infinitely hard wheel on an infinitely hard road would waste no
energy on deforming the road or the wheel.

Bill


But then the pressure would be infinite and the contact area zero, so
where does that leave you?

On a railway?

Nope. Even steel wheels on steel rails deform as they rotate, just not
very much.

SteveW

On 18/09/2012 23:59, Paul Herber wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 23:48:13 +0100, "Doctor Drivel" wrote:


"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
I was reading spent Prius batteries are good for replacing a lead/acid
battery in a car.

No - far better to use an old laptop one. Would be just as much use.

Why is it all these electric car fanatics understand basic electrics
rather less than a three year old?

This man is senile.

You are missing the dash dash space of your sig separator.

Today, at work, we received the "corporate policy" on sigs and I thought
it odd that the dash dash space was missing - then I discovered that
Outlook doesn't know how to strip sigs and that is probably why they
don't bother with it.

SteveW

On 19/09/2012 11:50, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
harry wrote:
On Sep 19, 12:55 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Audi are looking into using a very small Wankel engine as a range
extender genny slapped under the boot. For the rare times it will be
used it is fine. Wankels are efficient running at their constant
high
speed "sweet spot", so come into their own as a genny. The very
small
size and no vibration is also a great major advantage.
That'll be why all generators already use them.
This man is senile.
The rotary engine has been around for many many years. Petrol engine
powered generators too. The need for a quiet smooth running economical
generator also in great demand - many pay a great deal more for
this, over
a basic type.
But all of a sudden the Wankle engine is ideal for this job?
You really are the most gullible of idiots, dribble.
The one thing you need on generators is the ability to run long periods
without breaking. Wankel engines wore the seals out in a few hundred
hours if that.

You wont find them in aircraft either. Nor will you find an aircraft
engine revving much over 2500 rpm. That way the bloody things are
reliable for extended periods of high throttle running.


There ARE Wankel aircraft engines, I have seen them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraf...#Wankel_engine

The reason traditional aircraft engines rev slowly is to do with
propellor requirements. The alternative being heavy gearboxes back
than.

No its not, because...

There are some more modern ones that drive the propellor with a
toothed belt for speed reduction.


..you can gear them. In fact just about every large engine ever made
for aircraft from the 30s onwards was geared. Only light plane engines
and WWI engines ran ungeared. The RPM at the crank was still limited at
most to 4000 RPM. And that was on fighter engines with a life expectancy
measured in weeks.

If you want reliability on a big reciprocating aircraft engine you run
it sub 3000 rpm. End of.

So true for any reciprocating engine. Not aircraft related, but I used
to work for a compressor manufacturer and their long life (20 years
plus) gas engine driven compressors used to produce 4500 BHP at only 300
rpm (250l, V12, turbocharged).

But the tendency is toward small gas turbines.

which run at over 10K RPM and are of course geared.

On Sep 21, 6:45*pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
harry wrote:
On Sep 21, 6:00 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
harry wrote:
I see they have given up on it too. Wonder why?

Because hydrogen is not a fuel. Because hydrogen needs heavy containment
vessels. Because petrol, alcohol and diesel oil are all better fuels.

**** but you're thick.

Hydrogen is not a fuel??????????????

Correct. Hydrogen is not a fuel.

I should lie down and take a pill if I were you.

If I were you I'd shoot myself. I couldn't live with being thicker than
a cockroach.

You know, you're as bad as drivel in your own way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fuel

Hydrogen is a secondary fuel in the same way as electricity. ie
manufactured from some other (primary)fuel source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Primary_energy#Conversion_to_energy_carriers_.28or _secondary_energy.
29

You need to get some elementary education before you touch the
keyboard.
Now try to keep up.

On Sep 21, 8:03*pm, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
* *harry wrote:

On Sep 21, 10:24 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
* *harry wrote:

It's very difficult to make a piston engine run on hydrogen.

Really? BMW managed it on a dual fuel production car.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_Hydrogen_7
I see they have given up on it too. Wonder why?

Because like all these wonderful ideas it has disadvantages over petrol
and diesel.


It;s wonderful when there is no petrol and diesel.

harry wrote:
On Sep 21, 8:03 pm, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:

On Sep 21, 10:24 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:
It's very difficult to make a piston engine run on hydrogen.
Really? BMW managed it on a dual fuel production car.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_Hydrogen_7
I see they have given up on it too. Wonder why?
Because like all these wonderful ideas it has disadvantages over petrol
and diesel.


It;s wonderful when there is no petrol and diesel.

How would you know?

You have lived all your life in a world that had them: you have no idea
whatsoever what a world without them would be like.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Sep 21, 10:47*pm, Andy Champ wrote:
On 20/09/2012 23:27, Steve Firth wrote:

Andy Champ wrote:

CO2 most definitely is toxic.

No, not in the slightest.

* (Not very toxic, you can take a few
percent).

It's not toxic at all.

Steve, I don't always know what I'm talking about. *But this time I do.
JFGI.

And the carbon particles in diesel exhaust are carcinogenic.

No they aren't.

Arghh. He's caught Drivel Disease. The only disease transmittable
over the internet

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18415532

Andy

..

On Sep 21, 11:00*pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
John Williamson wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
harry wrote:

On Sep 21, 6:00 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
harry wrote:
I see they have given up on it too. Wonder why?
Because hydrogen is not a fuel. Because hydrogen needs heavy containment
vessels. Because petrol, alcohol and diesel oil are all better fuels.

**** but you're thick.
Hydrogen is not a fuel??????????????

Correct. Hydrogen is not a fuel.

And which obscure dictionary did you read to come up with that theory?

Unlike you I don't rely on ****poor dictionary definitions.

It might not be a primary fuel, but the Yanks in the 1960s thought it
and oxygen made a darn good fuel for shoving a rocket into orbit.

Hydrogen is a fuel in the same way that a battery is a fuel. You get
less out than you put in. If you need an incredibly large specific
impulse for a given weight you may well think that the losses are worth
the conversion. However unless you are powering a rocket or a SABRE
engine all you are doing is ****ing fuel up against the wall in order to
create hydrogen.- Hide quoted text -


That doesn't mean it is not a chemical fuel.
Go and lie down for a bit. Or go visit TurNiP.
Everyone will forget about this after a while.

On Sep 21, 11:37*pm, Tony Bryer wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 14:36:16 +0100 Doctor *Drivel wrote :

Route 96, on which these trams run, is every six minutes at peak
times.

Half the size then they can run every 3 minutes.

Twice as many drivers required

But running large trains during the day mean infrequent services. *Some
detach cars and run more frequent services.

If a rapid-transit urban railway has frequent services people use it

True: our airport express bus runs every ten minutes so you don't need a
timetable and there's a recognition that this is the ideal for trains,
trams and buses. But it would come at a cost.


It is how bus srevices used to be run years ago.
Local buses came every 20 minute when I was lad.
Timetables didn't exist.

harry wrote:
On Sep 21, 11:00 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
John Williamson wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
harry wrote:
On Sep 21, 6:00 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
harry wrote:
I see they have given up on it too. Wonder why?
Because hydrogen is not a fuel. Because hydrogen needs heavy containment
vessels. Because petrol, alcohol and diesel oil are all better fuels.
**** but you're thick.
Hydrogen is not a fuel??????????????
Correct. Hydrogen is not a fuel.
And which obscure dictionary did you read to come up with that theory?
Unlike you I don't rely on ****poor dictionary definitions.

It might not be a primary fuel, but the Yanks in the 1960s thought it
and oxygen made a darn good fuel for shoving a rocket into orbit.
Hydrogen is a fuel in the same way that a battery is a fuel. You get
less out than you put in. If you need an incredibly large specific
impulse for a given weight you may well think that the losses are worth
the conversion. However unless you are powering a rocket or a SABRE
engine all you are doing is ****ing fuel up against the wall in order to
create hydrogen.- Hide quoted text -


That doesn't mean it is not a chemical fuel.
Go and lie down for a bit. Or go visit TurNiP.

No thanks. Steve Firth is as big a ****** as you and Drivel.

Everyone will forget about this after a while.

Most people have already forgotten the 'hydrogen economy' harry.

As they will forget 'renewable energy' and 'Global warming' in another
decade or so.

When they finally realise that neither exists.

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

harry wrote:
On Sep 21, 11:37 pm, Tony Bryer wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 14:36:16 +0100 Doctor Drivel wrote :

Route 96, on which these trams run, is every six minutes at peak
times.
Half the size then they can run every 3 minutes.
Twice as many drivers required

But running large trains during the day mean infrequent services. Some
detach cars and run more frequent services.
If a rapid-transit urban railway has frequent services people use it
True: our airport express bus runs every ten minutes so you don't need a
timetable and there's a recognition that this is the ideal for trains,
trams and buses. But it would come at a cost.


It is how bus srevices used to be run years ago.
Local buses came every 20 minute when I was lad.
Timetables didn't exist.

Too thick to draw them up presumably where you came from.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Sep 21, 7:14*pm, tony sayer wrote:
Why are you ignoring wind?

Because its bloody useless in practice..

Tidal, Wave, Geothermal, Hydro electric are the important ones
remaining.

Result in sod all of the power we need...
--
Tony Sayer- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Norway runs on around 90% hydro I believe.
Brazil, Venezuela, Egypt, Zambia, China and the USA have huge hydro
electric power stations.

And where can we put ours then;?...
--
Tony Sayer

I never said there was huge potential in this country. There is huge
potential for tidal power.. And energy efficiency.

On Sep 21, 7:37*pm, polygonum wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 19:29:04 +0100, The Natural Philosopher









wrote:
tony sayer wrote:
Why are you ignoring wind?
Because its bloody useless in practice..

Tidal, Wave, Geothermal, Hydro electric are the important ones
remaining.
Result in sod all of the power we need...
--
Tony Sayer- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Norway runs on around 90% hydro I believe.
Brazil, Venezuela, Egypt, Zambia, China and the USA have huge hydro
electric power stations.
*And where can we put ours then;?...
#
I think the theory is you buil a 1000 ft dam all around Scotland and
flood it.

Seems like a plan. Especially if you don't empty the people out first.

I thought it might be easier to damn the Irish sea and the channel...

--
Rod

Ideal for tidal power. ;-)

On Sep 21, 11:00*pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
John Williamson wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
harry wrote:

On Sep 21, 6:00 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
harry wrote:
I see they have given up on it too. Wonder why?
Because hydrogen is not a fuel. Because hydrogen needs heavy containment
vessels. Because petrol, alcohol and diesel oil are all better fuels.

**** but you're thick.
Hydrogen is not a fuel??????????????

Correct. Hydrogen is not a fuel.

And which obscure dictionary did you read to come up with that theory?

Unlike you I don't rely on ****poor dictionary definitions.

It might not be a primary fuel, but the Yanks in the 1960s thought it
and oxygen made a darn good fuel for shoving a rocket into orbit.

Hydrogen is a fuel in the same way that a battery is a fuel. You get
less out than you put in. If you need an incredibly large specific
impulse for a given weight you may well think that the losses are worth
the conversion. However unless you are powering a rocket or a SABRE
engine all you are doing is ****ing fuel up against the wall in order to
create hydrogen.

A battery is a fuel too. It is chemical energy. It converts chemical
energy to electricity.
Energy can't be created or destroyed, just converted from one form to
another.
And it can be spread/dissipated.

You should have paid more attention at school.

On Sep 21, 11:47*pm, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel_h...eight_concerns

It concluded there were no concerns in unsprung weight.

I see you're illiterate too.

Quote from Wikipedia. (First line.)
Unsprung weight concerns
The major disadvantage of Wheel hub motors are that the weight of the
electric motors would increase the unsprung weight, which adversely
affects handling

On Sep 22, 12:07*am, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,

*harry wrote:
Norway runs on around 90% hydro I believe.
Brazil, Venezuela, Egypt, Zambia, China and the USA have huge hydro
electric power stations.

And this is relevant precisely *how* to the UK?


It's relevant in that and addtional large capacity European link is in
hand
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submari...power_cab les

On Sep 22, 7:53*am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
harry wrote:
On Sep 21, 8:03 pm, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
* *harry wrote:

On Sep 21, 10:24 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
* *harry wrote:
It's very difficult to make a piston engine run on hydrogen.
Really? BMW managed it on a dual fuel production car.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_Hydrogen_7
I see they have given up on it too. Wonder why?
Because like all these wonderful ideas it has disadvantages over petrol
and diesel.

It;s wonderful when there is no petrol and diesel.

How would you know?

You have lived all your life in a world that had them: you have no idea
whatsoever what a world without them would be like.


I have every idea.
Unlike you, I am doing something about it instead of whinging and
ranting.

harry wrote:
On Sep 21, 7:14 pm, tony sayer wrote:
Why are you ignoring wind?
Because its bloody useless in practice..
Tidal, Wave, Geothermal, Hydro electric are the important ones
remaining.
Result in sod all of the power we need...
--
Tony Sayer- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Norway runs on around 90% hydro I believe.
Brazil, Venezuela, Egypt, Zambia, China and the USA have huge hydro
electric power stations.
And where can we put ours then;?...
--
Tony Sayer

I never said there was huge potential in this country. There is huge
potential for tidal power.. And energy efficiency.

No, there isn't.
Not either.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

harry wrote:
On Sep 22, 12:07 am, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,

harry wrote:
Norway runs on around 90% hydro I believe.
Brazil, Venezuela, Egypt, Zambia, China and the USA have huge hydro
electric power stations.
And this is relevant precisely *how* to the UK?


It's relevant in that and addtional large capacity European link is in
hand
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submari...power_cab les

There isn't enough potential hydro in the whole of Europe to do the job,
submarine cables or not.

If you could do sums, you would know this. But if you could do sums, you
would realise that everything you say is utter ********, so we wouldn't
be talking.



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

harry wrote:
On Sep 22, 7:53 am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
harry wrote:
On Sep 21, 8:03 pm, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:
On Sep 21, 10:24 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:
It's very difficult to make a piston engine run on hydrogen.
Really? BMW managed it on a dual fuel production car.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_Hydrogen_7
I see they have given up on it too. Wonder why?
Because like all these wonderful ideas it has disadvantages over petrol
and diesel.
It;s wonderful when there is no petrol and diesel.
How would you know?

You have lived all your life in a world that had them: you have no idea
whatsoever what a world without them would be like.


I have every idea.

No, you haven't.

Unlike you, I am doing something about it instead of whinging and
ranting.

No, you are not. You are telling everybody else how clever you are,
without realising how stupid it makes you look.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

Quite. If you check my post immediately after that one you'll see I
meant same as two stroke designs. Dunno how the 'other' got in there.
;-) Basically, the Wankle neither charges or evacuates as well as a
piston four stroke.

It will do with a blower or turbo.

So you know better than Mazda who have done more development work on the
Wankle than anyone else? Yet still given up on it?

I'm not sure whether your head is in the clouds or up your arse...

--
*Not all men are annoying. Some are dead.

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

In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
The same reason we will have highly inefficient piston engines.

Yet you advocate an even more inefficient wankle?

--
*Upon the advice of my attorney, my shirt bears no message at this time

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

In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
It's mainly because their fuel efficiency is, and always will be, poor.

This idiot is at it gain. The fuel consumption is not poor when run at a
constant speed high revs at it "sweet spot".

It is still poor when compared to a piston engine designed to do the same
thing. It it were better, lots of upmarket generator makers - like Honda -
would already be using it.

--
*Out of my mind. Back in five minutes.

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