charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:
Crikey. An alternator is actually a very efficient device. Sounds like
they're clutching at straws.

An automotive alternator is very inefficient.
Define 'very inefficient'

And not having it removes a parasitic load from the IC engine.
Have you managed to design a car which runs without electricity? If not
suggest an alternative way of generating it. Solar panels, maybe?

magnetos?

Some diesels don't need leccy.


So a diesel and hand signals...

and hand operated windscreen wipers?

Vacuum or compressed air. Both have been used on vehicles I've driven in
the past.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:
Crikey. An alternator is actually a very efficient device. Sounds like
they're clutching at straws.

An automotive alternator is very inefficient.
Define 'very inefficient'

And not having it removes a parasitic load from the IC engine.
Have you managed to design a car which runs without electricity? If not
suggest an alternative way of generating it. Solar panels, maybe?

magnetos?

Some diesels don't need leccy.


So a diesel and hand signals...

and hand operated windscreen wipers?

Vacuum or compressed air. Both have been used on vehicles I've driven in
the past.

Yes, I remember driving the Ford Popular. Put your foot down to overtake
and the wipers stopped ;-(

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Have you managed to design a car which runs without electricity? If not
suggest an alternative way of generating it. Solar panels, maybe?

magnetos?

Some diesels don't need leccy.


So a diesel and hand signals...

And daylight use only. But it wouldn't get type approval with no lights.

--
*Errors have been made. Others will be blamed.

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

In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
and hand operated windscreen wipers?

Vacuum or compressed air. Both have been used on vehicles I've driven in
the past.

Vauxhall used to have them driven directly from the engine via a flexible
drive.

--
*Happiness is seeing your mother-in-law on a milk carton

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

On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 19:13:11 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Have you managed to design a car which runs without electricity? If
not
suggest an alternative way of generating it. Solar panels, maybe?

magnetos?

Some diesels don't need leccy.


So a diesel and hand signals...

And daylight use only. But it wouldn't get type approval with no lights.


Didn't our Kevin demonstrate burning diesel-like substance to produce
light in GD the other day?

Maybe a bit more complicated making them switch on each time you brake...

--
Rod

polygonum wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 19:13:11 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
And daylight use only. But it wouldn't get type approval with no lights.


Didn't our Kevin demonstrate burning diesel-like substance to produce
light in GD the other day?

Maybe a bit more complicated making them switch on each time you brake...

Leave them always burning, with a shutter. Maybe a central carbide lamp
with light pipes and some red filters.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:
Crikey. An alternator is actually a very efficient device. Sounds like
they're clutching at straws.

An automotive alternator is very inefficient.

Define 'very inefficient'

And not having it removes a parasitic load from the IC engine.

Have you managed to design a car which runs without electricity? If not
suggest an alternative way of generating it. Solar panels, maybe?

Hand cranked diesel with semaphore indicators and carbide lamps maybe?
Not sure that would count as progress but it does has a certain "retro"
appeal. ;-)

Tim

In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
More conspiracy theory. Dribble wants to replace a highly inefficient
piston engine
This proves this person senile. Piston engines are approx 20%
efficient.
80% of the energy in the tank is wasted.
Wrong yet again. Try harder. Look up the efficiency of various types
running at their 'sweet spot' as you want. You might just learn
something
for once. But I doubt it.

no, dribble isnt far wrong in practice. Car engines dont run at anything
like the sweet spot' most of the time.



JOOI where is this other energy wasted in heat or emissions or a combo
of both?..

Suppose I have say a 100 kW engine then 25 % of that is useful driving
the wheels energy, so where would or does the other 75 kW go to then
surely not all as heat?..

all as heat
if you mean a 30bhp car which is about what 25KW is.
Nope guv thats a 100 kW output engine and by the 25% thats only 25 kW
useful which isn't strictly true for all throttle settings and imposed
loads.

That 100kw engine is using 400kw of fuel burn then.

OK .. the engine in my car is described IIRC that is as 98 kW

so its that its useful output, capable output, or what it consumes in
fuel of the equivalent of? ....

useful output.

Fuel burn 3-4 times more.

So then its dissipating under full throttle 300/400 kW?, Surely not?..



You know, a 300 foot wind turbine in a stiff breeze


Anyone got a power output useful -v- wasted power for a petrol or
diseasel engine anywhere?..

Why do you think cars have ****ing great fan blown radiators on them?

To keep 'em kwel..





--
Tony Sayer

In article , John Williamson
scribeth thus
charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:
Crikey. An alternator is actually a very efficient device. Sounds like
they're clutching at straws.

An automotive alternator is very inefficient.
Define 'very inefficient'

And not having it removes a parasitic load from the IC engine.
Have you managed to design a car which runs without electricity? If not
suggest an alternative way of generating it. Solar panels, maybe?

magnetos?

Some diesels don't need leccy.


So a diesel and hand signals...

and hand operated windscreen wipers?

Vacuum or compressed air. Both have been used on vehicles I've driven in
the past.


I remember driving a rather olde Lotus many years ago that had vacuum
headlamps .. foot to the floor lamps down.. Back off the power lamps
up;!...

Sort of inbuilt speed limiter I suppose;!...
--
Tony Sayer

In article , Doctor Drivel invalid@not-
for-mail.invalid scribeth thus

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article
,
harry wrote:
Volkswagen have been experimenting with thermpiles in the exhaust to
make electricity and thus eliminating the alternator.

Crikey. An alternator is actually a very efficient device. Sounds like
they're clutching at straws.

NO, using waste heat to produce electricity . Run a 100A alternator off an
electric motor.

Eh?, Where or what is powering is err umm rotary converter system?..

Most take around a 8 to 9 Hp motor to turn it when charging.
That is they take about 9 hp off the crank. Remove that, the mechanical oil
pump, water pump, a/c and replace all with electric and the fuel consumption
rises, as the parasite hp suckers are not sucking off the engine. An oil
pump alone can consume 10hp off the crank.

Then a smaller engine is needed reducing fuel consumption yet again. All
simple stuff that can be done tomorrow.

Parasite engine ancillaries can take one third of the HP from an engine.
Removing them and having a mechanism that charges the battery by waste heat
and kinetic energy is the answer to make these useless inefficient crocks
last a few more years before EVs take over fully.


--
Tony Sayer

In article
s.com, harry scribeth thus
On Sep 24, 10:49*am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
* *harry wrote:

Volkswagen have been experimenting with *thermpiles in the exhaust to
make electricity and thus eliminating the alternator.

Crikey. An alternator is actually a very efficient device. Sounds like
they're clutching at straws.

An automotive alternator is very inefficient.

Really, why is that and just how inefficient?.
..
And not having it
removes a parasitic load from the IC engine.

So where is the power coming from then Harry?..
--
Tony Sayer

tony sayer wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
More conspiracy theory. Dribble wants to replace a highly inefficient
piston engine
This proves this person senile. Piston engines are approx 20%
efficient.
80% of the energy in the tank is wasted.
Wrong yet again. Try harder. Look up the efficiency of various types
running at their 'sweet spot' as you want. You might just learn
something
for once. But I doubt it.

no, dribble isnt far wrong in practice. Car engines dont run at anything
like the sweet spot' most of the time.



JOOI where is this other energy wasted in heat or emissions or a combo
of both?..

Suppose I have say a 100 kW engine then 25 % of that is useful driving
the wheels energy, so where would or does the other 75 kW go to then
surely not all as heat?..

all as heat
if you mean a 30bhp car which is about what 25KW is.
Nope guv thats a 100 kW output engine and by the 25% thats only 25 kW
useful which isn't strictly true for all throttle settings and imposed
loads.

That 100kw engine is using 400kw of fuel burn then.
OK .. the engine in my car is described IIRC that is as 98 kW

so its that its useful output, capable output, or what it consumes in
fuel of the equivalent of? ....
useful output.

Fuel burn 3-4 times more.

So then its dissipating under full throttle 300/400 kW?, Surely not?..


If you add it all up, yes. A *lot* of heat comes out of that exhaust
pipe in the hot gases. About 10 times the engine capacity every
revolution, at upwards of 300C.

I remember driving a coach in the early '80s flat out, and seeing (After
dark, of course) the red hot column of gases coming out of the exhaust
in the rear view mirror.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 24/09/2012 01:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
A hamster on a treadmill neither wrecks the landscape nor is especially
unreliable.

I put it to you that the required number of hamsters would be even more
impractical than the required number of windmills. Anyway, what's the
load factor on a hamster?

Andy

On 24/09/2012 20:25, tony sayer wrote:
So then its dissipating under full throttle 300/400 kW?, Surely not?..

At full throttle it's probably a bit more efficient. So 200/300kW.

Surprising isn't it!

Andy

charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:
Crikey. An alternator is actually a very efficient device. Sounds like
they're clutching at straws.

An automotive alternator is very inefficient.
Define 'very inefficient'

And not having it removes a parasitic load from the IC engine.
Have you managed to design a car which runs without electricity? If not
suggest an alternative way of generating it. Solar panels, maybe?

magnetos?

Some diesels don't need leccy.


So a diesel and hand signals...

and hand operated windscreen wipers?

VACUUM operated!

And acetylene lamps.!!


--
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.

John Williamson wrote:
charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:
Crikey. An alternator is actually a very efficient device. Sounds
like
they're clutching at straws.

An automotive alternator is very inefficient.
Define 'very inefficient'
And not having it removes a parasitic load from the IC engine.
Have you managed to design a car which runs without electricity? If not
suggest an alternative way of generating it. Solar panels, maybe?

magnetos?

Some diesels don't need leccy.


So a diesel and hand signals...

and hand operated windscreen wipers?

Vacuum or compressed air. Both have been used on vehicles I've driven in
the past.


yeah. Ford pop IIRC - when you put your foot down to over take the
lorry, they stopped. Just as you hit the spraywall:-)



--
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.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
and hand operated windscreen wipers?

Vacuum or compressed air. Both have been used on vehicles I've driven in
the past.

Vauxhall used to have them driven directly from the engine via a flexible
drive.

Must have been a LONG time ago.

I go back to Victors/Bedford vans and even that had leccy ones..no
heater, but electric wipers..


--
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.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Have you managed to design a car which runs without electricity? If not
suggest an alternative way of generating it. Solar panels, maybe?

magnetos?

Some diesels don't need leccy.


So a diesel and hand signals...

And daylight use only. But it wouldn't get type approval with no lights.

Acetylene

--
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.

polygonum wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 19:13:11 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Have you managed to design a car which runs without electricity? If
not
suggest an alternative way of generating it. Solar panels, maybe?

magnetos?

Some diesels don't need leccy.


So a diesel and hand signals...

And daylight use only. But it wouldn't get type approval with no lights.


Didn't our Kevin demonstrate burning diesel-like substance to produce
light in GD the other day?

Maybe a bit more complicated making them switch on each time you brake...

mantel equipped PRIMUS lamps.



--
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.

tony sayer wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
More conspiracy theory. Dribble wants to replace a highly inefficient
piston engine
This proves this person senile. Piston engines are approx 20%
efficient.
80% of the energy in the tank is wasted.
Wrong yet again. Try harder. Look up the efficiency of various types
running at their 'sweet spot' as you want. You might just learn
something
for once. But I doubt it.

no, dribble isnt far wrong in practice. Car engines dont run at anything
like the sweet spot' most of the time.



JOOI where is this other energy wasted in heat or emissions or a combo
of both?..

Suppose I have say a 100 kW engine then 25 % of that is useful driving
the wheels energy, so where would or does the other 75 kW go to then
surely not all as heat?..

all as heat
if you mean a 30bhp car which is about what 25KW is.
Nope guv thats a 100 kW output engine and by the 25% thats only 25 kW
useful which isn't strictly true for all throttle settings and imposed
loads.

That 100kw engine is using 400kw of fuel burn then.
OK .. the engine in my car is described IIRC that is as 98 kW

so its that its useful output, capable output, or what it consumes in
fuel of the equivalent of? ....
useful output.

Fuel burn 3-4 times more.

So then its dissipating under full throttle 300/400 kW?, Surely not?..


yes.

most surely. But that will get you to 120mph in top so its unlikely you
will keep it there, and if you do its a good 'fan blown' rad.


You know, a 300 foot wind turbine in a stiff breeze


Anyone got a power output useful -v- wasted power for a petrol or
diseasel engine anywhere?..

Why do you think cars have ****ing great fan blown radiators on them?

To keep 'em kwel..




--
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.

Andy Champ wrote:
On 24/09/2012 01:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
A hamster on a treadmill neither wrecks the landscape nor is especially
unreliable.

I put it to you that the required number of hamsters would be even more
impractical than the required number of windmills. Anyway, what's the
load factor on a hamster?


about 20%. Similar to windmills

Andy


--
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 24, 10:49 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:

Volkswagen have been experimenting with thermpiles in the exhaust to
make electricity and thus eliminating the alternator.

Crikey. An alternator is actually a very efficient device. Sounds like
they're clutching at straws.

An automotive alternator is very inefficient. And not having it
removes a parasitic load from the IC engine.

A parasite gives nothing in return. An alternator is a commensal or
symbion. It turns mechanical energy into very useful electrical energy.

Tim

In article , John Williamson
scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
More conspiracy theory. Dribble wants to replace a highly
inefficient
piston engine
This proves this person senile. Piston engines are approx 20%
efficient.
80% of the energy in the tank is wasted.
Wrong yet again. Try harder. Look up the efficiency of various types
running at their 'sweet spot' as you want. You might just learn
something
for once. But I doubt it.

no, dribble isnt far wrong in practice. Car engines dont run at
anything
like the sweet spot' most of the time.



JOOI where is this other energy wasted in heat or emissions or a combo
of both?..

Suppose I have say a 100 kW engine then 25 % of that is useful driving
the wheels energy, so where would or does the other 75 kW go to then
surely not all as heat?..

all as heat
if you mean a 30bhp car which is about what 25KW is.
Nope guv thats a 100 kW output engine and by the 25% thats only 25 kW
useful which isn't strictly true for all throttle settings and imposed
loads.

That 100kw engine is using 400kw of fuel burn then.
OK .. the engine in my car is described IIRC that is as 98 kW

so its that its useful output, capable output, or what it consumes in
fuel of the equivalent of? ....
useful output.

Fuel burn 3-4 times more.

So then its dissipating under full throttle 300/400 kW?, Surely not?..


If you add it all up, yes. A *lot* of heat comes out of that exhaust
pipe in the hot gases. About 10 times the engine capacity every
revolution, at upwards of 300C.

I remember driving a coach in the early '80s flat out, and seeing (After
dark, of course) the red hot column of gases coming out of the exhaust
in the rear view mirror.


Just seems that it's the equivalent of 300 to 400 hundred 1 bar electric
fires?...

Thats a hell of a lot of heat!...


--
Tony Sayer

In message , tony sayer
writes

U really should get out more Harry...

He would if he could open the door


--
geoff

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:
Crikey. An alternator is actually a very efficient device. Sounds like
they're clutching at straws.

An automotive alternator is very inefficient.
Define 'very inefficient'
And not having it removes a parasitic load from the IC engine.
Have you managed to design a car which runs without electricity? If not
suggest an alternative way of generating it. Solar panels, maybe?

magnetos?

Some diesels don't need leccy.

So a diesel and hand signals...
and hand operated windscreen wipers?

VACUUM operated!

And acetylene lamps.!!


Never venture forth without a full bladder


--
geoff

geoff wrote:
In message , tony sayer
writes

U really should get out more Harry...

He would if he could open the door


Can't do that. Let the heat out that would.

Harry lives with his farts.

--
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.

tony sayer wrote:
In article , John Williamson
scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
More conspiracy theory. Dribble wants to replace a highly
inefficient
piston engine
This proves this person senile. Piston engines are approx 20%
efficient.
80% of the energy in the tank is wasted.
Wrong yet again. Try harder. Look up the efficiency of various types
running at their 'sweet spot' as you want. You might just learn
something
for once. But I doubt it.

no, dribble isnt far wrong in practice. Car engines dont run at
anything
like the sweet spot' most of the time.



JOOI where is this other energy wasted in heat or emissions or a combo
of both?..

Suppose I have say a 100 kW engine then 25 % of that is useful driving
the wheels energy, so where would or does the other 75 kW go to then
surely not all as heat?..

all as heat
if you mean a 30bhp car which is about what 25KW is.
Nope guv thats a 100 kW output engine and by the 25% thats only 25 kW
useful which isn't strictly true for all throttle settings and imposed
loads.

That 100kw engine is using 400kw of fuel burn then.
OK .. the engine in my car is described IIRC that is as 98 kW

so its that its useful output, capable output, or what it consumes in
fuel of the equivalent of? ....
useful output.

Fuel burn 3-4 times more.
So then its dissipating under full throttle 300/400 kW?, Surely not?..


If you add it all up, yes. A *lot* of heat comes out of that exhaust
pipe in the hot gases. About 10 times the engine capacity every
revolution, at upwards of 300C.

I remember driving a coach in the early '80s flat out, and seeing (After
dark, of course) the red hot column of gases coming out of the exhaust
in the rear view mirror.


Just seems that it's the equivalent of 300 to 400 hundred 1 bar electric
fires?...

Thats a hell of a lot of heat!...


It is.

exhaust manifolds get red hot.


--
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 24, 5:19*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
harry wrote:
On Sep 24, 10:49 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
* *harry wrote:

Volkswagen have been experimenting with *thermpiles in the exhaust to
make electricity and thus eliminating the alternator.
Crikey. An alternator is actually a very efficient device. Sounds like
they're clutching at straws.

An automotive alternator is very inefficient. *And not having it
removes a parasitic load from the IC engine.

Its very efficient. Probably 80% or better.

Wrong as usual TurNiP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alterna...ve_alternators

Efficiency of automotive alternators is limited by fan cooling loss,
bearing loss, iron loss, copper loss, and the voltage drop in the
diode bridges. At partial load efficiency is between 50-62% depending
on the size of alternator and varies with alternator speed.[8] This is
similar to very small high-performance permanent magnet alternators,
such as those used for bicycle lighting systems, which achieve an
efficiency around 60%.

On Sep 24, 5:21*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
harry wrote:
On Sep 24, 12:37 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article
,
* *harry wrote:
* the energy required to make it. And mine all the things that go into
it. And get it to where its got to go. And to make all the complex
electronics that help defraud consumers.
Need not come exclusvely from oil.
Nothing in the manufacture of solar panels needs come exclusively from
oil.
Of course there are alternatives. But in the event of oil running out
those alternatives will massively shoot up in price. Making solar panels
even more uneconomic.
renewable energy: a high cost way of generating inconvenient electricity
that depends on the oil economy for its viability.

More drivel fromTurNiP.
As oil disappears renewable energy becomes more viable.

Not really harry, since nuclear power will always be cheaper than your
solar panels. and when civilisation collapses, no one will pay for your
electricity anyway.


More crap.
We were told it was going to be free at one time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economi...r_power_plants

Nobody wants nuclear power because of the cost.

On Sep 24, 5:22*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
harry wrote:
On Sep 24, 2:12 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
* *Doctor *Drivel wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article
,
* harry wrote:
Volkswagen have been experimenting with *thermpiles in the exhaust to
make electricity and thus eliminating the alternator.
Crikey. An alternator is actually a very efficient device. Sounds like
they're clutching at straws.
NO, using waste heat to produce electricity . *Run a 100A alternator off
an electric motor. Most take around a 8 to 9 Hp motor to turn it when
charging. That is they take about 9 hp off the crank.
I think you've finally flipped. Use an electric motor to generate
electricity...
Remove that, the mechanical oil pump, water pump, a/c and replace all
with electric and the fuel consumption rises, as the parasite hp
suckers are not sucking off the engine. *An oil pump alone can consume
10hp off the crank.
Just do without one then. Who needs oil circulating in an engine?
Then a smaller engine is needed reducing fuel consumption yet again. All
simple stuff that can be done tomorrow.
Parasite engine ancillaries can take one third of the HP from an engine.
Removing them and having a mechanism that charges the battery by waste
heat and kinetic energy is the answer to make these useless inefficient
crocks last a few more years before EVs take over fully.
And all you need to do now is invent a way of turning waste heat into
electricity economically. If they existed, we'd be using them to generate
electricity from the sun, etc.
well to be fair that's how a nuclear power station works..

All heat engines are inherently inefficient. Heat is an intermediary
in most processes.

Its not inherently inefficient any more than anything else is.

--
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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Creating heat can be 100% efficient.
Turning heat into anything else is the big problem.

On Sep 24, 5:24*pm, John Williamson
wrote:
harry wrote:
On Sep 24, 10:49 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
Of course there are alternatives. But in the event of oil running out
those alternatives will massively shoot up in price. Making solar panels
even more uneconomic.
.

When the oil runs outbecomes rare/expensive and all energy costs more,
solar panels will be even more viable because they need no oil to run.

At the same time as they become more expensive to make and buy due to
the increased cost of the energy used to make them.

If you build an oil fired power station you need oil to build it and
oil to run it.

With a renewable energy source you might need oil to build it and then
nothing.
That is what TurNiP can't/won't get his fat head round.

My PV panels will last 25 years without further expense. The drop in
efficiency is less than 1%/year.

On Sep 24, 5:58*pm, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
* *harry wrote:

Crikey. An alternator is actually a very efficient device. Sounds like
they're clutching at straws.

An automotive alternator is very inefficient.

Define 'very inefficient'

See previous post.
*And not having it removes a parasitic load from the IC engine.

Have you managed to design a car which runs without electricity? If not
suggest an alternative way of generating it. Solar panels, maybe?

I have already mentioned the thermopile in the exhaust VW are working
on.
This uses energy that otherwise would be lost.

There is scope too for reducing the electrical lload too. Most of it
is unnecesary anyway. Trivia like electric seats/mirrors/sunroofs.

On Sep 24, 6:09*pm, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
* *harry wrote:

The main benefit of an electric oil pump is that you can start it
before starting the IC engine so reducing wear to almost nil.

And engine wear is a problem these days? Most cars go to the scrapyard on
their original engine.


No need to rest on laurels. Engines could normally last a million
miles.
Most wear occurs on startup. Wear reduces efficiency.

But electric motors could last longer than that.
The batteries are the problem.

On Sep 24, 6:20*pm, John Rumm wrote:
On 23/09/2012 20:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:





harry wrote:
On Sep 23, 5:30 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

When there is no petrol or diesel, how are you going to make your
hydrogen? With no fossil fuels, electricity will be much more expensive
than now and it makes no sense to waste that making hydrogen.
How is anyone going to make solar paneles without oil? The manufacture
of solar panels is extraordinarily wasteful of energy. The price of
solar panels is closely linked to the price of oil.

So which part of a solar panel comes exclusively from oil?

Its energy content* by and large.

* the energy required to make it. And mine all the things that go into
it. And get it to where its got to go. And to make all the complex
electronics that help defraud consumers.

You can see why "big oil" probably quite likes these things... they can
champion them, claim all sorts of green subsidy for encouraging them,
while watching them indirectly convert their fossil fuel into expensive
electricity ;-)


All electricity producing devices need energy to manufacture.
But with renewables it's a one off.

Big oil is getting on the bandwagon. They own windfarms now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_...rnative_Energy
Don't be influenced by TurNiP.

On Sep 24, 6:20*pm, John Rumm wrote:
On 24/09/2012 08:36, harry wrote:





On Sep 23, 8:43 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
harry wrote:
On Sep 23, 5:30 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

When there is no petrol or diesel, how are you going to make your
hydrogen? With no fossil fuels, electricity will be much more expensive
than now and it makes no sense to waste that making hydrogen.
How is anyone going to make solar paneles without oil? The manufacture
of solar panels is extraordinarily wasteful of energy. The price of
solar panels is closely linked to the price of oil.

So which part of a solar panel comes exclusively from oil?

Its energy content* by and large.

* the energy required to make it. And mine all the things that go into
it. And get it to where its got to go. And to make all the complex
electronics that help defraud consumers.

Need not come exclusvely from oil.
Nothing in the manufacture of solar panels needs come exclusively from
oil.

Would you prefer coal or gas?

Gas is preferable as it has less carbon and can be utilsed far more
efficiently.
But it could be solar and will be in the future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_furnace

On Sep 24, 6:28*pm, John Williamson
wrote:
charles wrote:
In article ,
* *The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article
,
* *harry wrote:
Crikey. An alternator is actually a very efficient device. Sounds like
they're clutching at straws.

An automotive alternator is very inefficient.
Define 'very inefficient'

*And not having it removes a parasitic load from the IC engine.
Have you managed to design a car which runs without electricity? If not
suggest an alternative way of generating it. Solar panels, maybe?

magnetos?

Some diesels don't need leccy.

So a diesel and hand signals...

and hand operated windscreen wipers?

Vacuum or compressed air. Both have been used on vehicles I've driven in
the past.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ford consul off the inlet manifold. They stopped when you put your
foot down to pass someone.

On Sep 24, 10:27*pm, tony sayer wrote:
In article , John Williamson
scribeth thus





tony sayer wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
tony sayer wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
* *Doctor *Drivel wrote:
More conspiracy theory. Dribble wants to replace a highly
inefficient
piston engine
This proves this person senile. Piston engines are approx 20%
efficient.
80% of the energy in the tank is wasted.
Wrong yet again. Try harder. Look up the efficiency of various types
running at their 'sweet spot' as you want. You might just learn
something
for once. But I doubt it.

no, dribble isnt far wrong in practice. Car engines dont run at
anything
like the sweet spot' most of the time.

JOOI where is this other energy wasted in heat or emissions or a combo
of both?..

Suppose I have say a 100 kW engine then 25 % of that is useful driving
the wheels energy, so where would or does the other 75 kW go to then
surely not all as heat?..

all as heat
if you mean a 30bhp car which is about what 25KW is.
Nope guv thats a 100 kW output engine and by the 25% *thats only 25 kW
useful which isn't strictly true for all throttle settings and imposed
loads.

That 100kw engine is using 400kw of fuel burn then.
OK .. the engine in my car is described IIRC that is as 98 kW

so its that its useful output, capable output, or what it consumes in
fuel of the equivalent of? ....
useful output.

Fuel burn 3-4 times more.

So then its dissipating under full throttle 300/400 kW?, Surely not?..

If you add it all up, yes. A *lot* of heat comes out of that exhaust
pipe in the hot gases. About 10 times the engine capacity every
revolution, at upwards of 300C.

I remember driving a coach in the early '80s flat out, and seeing (After
dark, of course) the red hot column of gases coming out of the exhaust
in the rear view mirror.

Just seems that it's the equivalent of 300 to 400 hundred 1 bar electric
fires?...

Thats a hell of a lot of heat!...

So it is. But the car engine runs on full power for just a few seconds
at once.
And not at all if the driver has any sense.

On Sep 24, 9:15*pm, Tim+
wrote:
harry wrote:
On Sep 24, 10:49 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
* *harry wrote:

Volkswagen have been experimenting with *thermpiles in the exhaust to
make electricity and thus eliminating the alternator.

Crikey. An alternator is actually a very efficient device. Sounds like
they're clutching at straws.

An automotive alternator is very inefficient. *And not having it
removes a parasitic load from the IC engine.

A parasite gives nothing in return. An alternator is a commensal or
symbion. It turns mechanical energy into very useful electrical energy.

Tim

In this context, it diverts useful power from the primary purpose, ie
propeling the vehcle.

On Sep 24, 8:47*pm, tony sayer wrote:
In article
s.com, harry scribeth thus

On Sep 24, 10:49*am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
* *harry wrote:

Volkswagen have been experimenting with *thermpiles in the exhaust to
make electricity and thus eliminating the alternator.

Crikey. An alternator is actually a very efficient device. Sounds like
they're clutching at straws.

An automotive alternator is very inefficient.

Really, why is that and just how inefficient?.

It's inefficient because it's made to a price and petrol was cheap.


And not having it
removes a parasitic load from the IC engine.

So where is the power coming from then Harry?..

Tch. Petrol. Where else do you suppose?

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
and hand operated windscreen wipers?

Vacuum or compressed air. Both have been used on vehicles I've driven in
the past.

Vauxhall used to have them driven directly from the engine via a
flexible drive.

Must have been a LONG time ago.

Early/mid '50s. Were near enough current with vacuum ones. Strange thing
is electric ones had been around since long before WW2.

I go back to Victors/Bedford vans and even that had leccy ones..no
heater, but electric wipers..

--
*It ain't the size, it's... er... no, it IS ..the size.

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