In article ,
Jules Richardson wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 09:08:27 -0700, 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.

Does it make a significant difference? It's still going to be pumping
cold oil, and for any engine that was recently run I'd expect it to have
a film of oil still clinging to any sliding surfaces.

And pumping oil through a stationary engine will have virtually no effect.
It certainly won't coat all the bearing faces. More proof that these bar
room 'engineers' have absolutely no hands on experience.

Pre-heating everything prior to start might be kinder, but that takes
power (or, if you're a little farther north than me, lighting a fire
under the engine block isn't unheard of ;-)

An immersion heater in the block coolant is a good way. Makes for a near
instant heater too.

--
*I thought I wanted a career. Turns out I just wanted paychecks.

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

In article
,
harry wrote:
You missed the fact that bearing failure is most unusual on a modern
engine? But since you are such an expert, perhaps you'd give details of
when this last happened to you or yours?

Simpler is always more reliable all else beingequal.

I had to fit new big end shells and main bearing shells to a Rover V8
engine about ten years ago.

Only the worst of ignorant ****s would fit new bearing shells to anything.
If the shells need replacing, the bearing surface is also worn/damaged.

But next time, don't let it run out of oil. And your electric pump won't
help there either.

--
*A fool and his money are soon partying *

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

On 25/09/2012 10:27, harry wrote:
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.

Have you been taking dribble pills?

How do you suppose the van load of gear and its crew gets to each wind
turbine to maintain it? What about the grid workers looking after all
those extra miles of expensive copper?

They can't just turn up at work in the morning and do the whole power
station when is spread over every bit of previously green and pleasant
wilderness.

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.

Of course - they know how to milk subsidies and incentive schemes even
better than you. Not only that, they get to supply all the fuel to
maintain the kit, and that to keep the lights on when the wind is not
blowing.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Jules Richardson wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 21:28:49 +0100, Steve Firth wrote:

Doctor Drivel wrote:

I am a know witless poohead.

I agree.

I imagine he has terrible trouble with soiled hats.

And his voice is muffled when he sits down.

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

tony sayer wrote:
In article , Andy Champ
scribeth thus
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

Yes very. I was standing near a 25 kW load bank for a generator test and
that was bloody hot and throwing out a -Lot- of heat. Now my olde motah
when doing say 100 MPH odd, perish the thought here in the UK, will be
dissipating several times that?..

Anyone got a really good graphical representation of the power
consumption/ load/ and output of a modern day IC engine at all?..

not handy..there are some interesting graphs and articles on the
internet tho I came across when researching the thorny question opf
'what is speed that gives the best mpg' which comes out as 'it depends'

Somewhere between 25 and 70mph seems to be the answer :-)


--
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 26, 2:11 pm, tony sayer wrote:
In article
.com, harry scribeth thus









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.
Thats err, a very scientific argument Harry;!...

It's an economic argument not scientific..

They could be made far more efficient with say neodymium magnets
instead of electromagnets.

Not really.

The air gaps in the magnetic circuit could
be reduced.

You dont know much about electric motor or alternator design do you?


All costs money. More than people are prepared to pay when petrol is
cheap.



--
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 26, 2:22 pm, Tim Streater wrote:

There is capital costs too with the solar panels, chump.


Are you illiterate

No, but it seems ypu are.

Don't you read stuff?

No but it seems, you don't.

There are no energy running
costs with renewable energy sources.

Course there are. Every time you have to get a scaffolder in to clean
the bird**** off, that takes energy.



--
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.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:

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

Tim Streater wrote:

Sunshine is inexhaustable and in my garden. And no-one can cut my
supply off.

1) Not during the night it's not.

You store it during the day.

The Aussie solar plants are proposing to do that by using some of
the solar heat to melt salt. That salt then drives the gennies
during the night. These are proposed plants producing about 300MW
each. They cover large amounts of land.

We don't have the land for that

Daily Mail & Torygraph propaganda. The UK is EMPTY - only 7.5% of the
land settled.

Empty eh? Tell that to the swarms who live in London and the Midlands.
Also the "unsettled land" is used for growing food - or hadn't you noticed?

Or its unsuitable for any use at all. Maybe deer herding.

--
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.

S Viemeister wrote:
On 9/26/2012 9:23 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
Sunshine is inexhaustable and in my garden. And no-one can cut my
supply off.

1) Not during the night it's not.

You store it during the day.

The Aussie solar plants are proposing to do that by using some of
the solar heat to melt salt. That salt then drives the gennies
during the night. These are proposed plants producing about 300MW
each. They cover large amounts of land.

We don't have the land for that

Daily Mail & Torygraph propaganda. The UK is EMPTY - only 7.5% of the
land settled.

Empty eh? Tell that to the swarms who live in London and the Midlands.
Also the "unsettled land" is used for growing food - or hadn't you
noticed?

And some of the unsettled land is unsuitable for either housing or
agriculture.
Or indeed windmills

--
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.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
S Viemeister wrote:

On 9/26/2012 9:23 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
Sunshine is inexhaustable and in my garden. And no-one can
cut my
supply off.

1) Not during the night it's not.

You store it during the day.

The Aussie solar plants are proposing to do that by using some of
the solar heat to melt salt. That salt then drives the gennies
during the night. These are proposed plants producing about 300MW
each. They cover large amounts of land.

We don't have the land for that

Daily Mail & Torygraph propaganda. The UK is EMPTY - only 7.5% of the
land settled.

Empty eh? Tell that to the swarms who live in London and the Midlands.
Also the "unsettled land" is used for growing food - or hadn't you
noticed?

And some of the unsettled land is unsuitable for either housing or
agriculture.

Good place for the nukes we need then.

Its all in porridgeland and they don't want any at all. Stupid porridge
wogs.

All that fuss about Dounreay. I've been there. No one else ever goes.
Dead and alive piece of landscape with nothing to recommend it apart
from a few stone age barrows like the ones harry wants us to live in.

--
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.

whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 11:41:05 AM UTC+1, Tim Streater wrote:
In article

,

harry wrote:



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.


Only by politicians and the media.

I remmeber doing a project on it at school in the early 70s
the claim that nuclear energy would be so cheap to produce that it wouldn't
be worth the cost pof writing a cheque so no one would get charge for electricity.
If onmly we could generate power from political lies and corruption, we'd be sorted then


That was based on the cost of the actual fuel.

And would have meant the end of the coal industry, so they invented lots
of very expensie regulations to preserve the coal and oil industry.





--

Tim



"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,

nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689



--
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
,
harry wrote:
You missed the fact that bearing failure is most unusual on a modern
engine? But since you are such an expert, perhaps you'd give details of
when this last happened to you or yours?

Simpler is always more reliable all else beingequal.

I had to fit new big end shells and main bearing shells to a Rover V8
engine about ten years ago.

Only the worst of ignorant ****s would fit new bearing shells to anything.
If the shells need replacing, the bearing surface is also worn/damaged.


No.

Crankshafts are hard steel,. bearing caps are IIRC lead indium plated,
they wear much sooner.

If you let them wear to the coppper backing of course you WILL score the
crank.

In the bad old BMC days I used to replace big ends at 30k, mains at 60k
and have a bloody good look at the crank and bores at 120k, if the whole
car lasted that long.



But next time, don't let it run out of oil. And your electric pump won't
help there 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 26, 8:18 am, charles wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:

[Snip]

Sunshine is inexhaustable and in my garden. And no-one can cut my
supply off.
ever heard of clouds?


Someone is controlling clouds?

Almost certainly.


--
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.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
tony sayer wrote:
In article , Andy Champ
scribeth thus
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

Yes very. I was standing near a 25 kW load bank for a generator test and
that was bloody hot and throwing out a -Lot- of heat. Now my olde motah
when doing say 100 MPH odd, perish the thought here in the UK, will be
dissipating several times that?..

Anyone got a really good graphical representation of the power
consumption/ load/ and output of a modern day IC engine at all?..

not handy..there are some interesting graphs and articles on the
internet tho I came across when researching the thorny question opf
'what is speed that gives the best mpg' which comes out as 'it depends'

Somewhere between 25 and 70mph seems to be the answer :-)


Most modern vehicles are optimised for 90 kilometres per hour, as that's
one of the EU official test speeds.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
All electric motors have easily changed bearings? Think you need to get
out more. Besides, when a bearing fails, damage may not be restricted to
the bearing itself.

Tripe! Bearings on large auto electric motors can be quicke replace
units.

Proof, please. And I'd hope, given just how new most electric cars are,
bearing replacement would not be a common thing.


Its not easy even on poxy little motors. Its about the same as a wheel
bearing change - need to pull or drive the race housings out of the
casing and that means a near total strip down.

You missed the fact that bearing failure is most unusual on a modern
engine?

It isn't. Also they loosen off and become noisy and create vibration.

You must move on from that Model Y Ford...



--
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.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
S Viemeister wrote:
On 9/26/2012 9:23 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:
Daily Mail & Torygraph propaganda. The UK is EMPTY - only 7.5% of the
land settled.

Empty eh? Tell that to the swarms who live in London and the Midlands.
Also the "unsettled land" is used for growing food - or hadn't you
noticed?

And some of the unsettled land is unsuitable for either housing or
agriculture.
Or indeed windmills

Or, if it comes to it, nuclear power stations. Too far from the demand,
too far from the water, too likely to get flooded...

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

John Williamson wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
S Viemeister wrote:
On 9/26/2012 9:23 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
"Doctor Drivel" wrote:
Daily Mail & Torygraph propaganda. The UK is EMPTY - only 7.5% of the
land settled.

Empty eh? Tell that to the swarms who live in London and the Midlands.
Also the "unsettled land" is used for growing food - or hadn't you
noticed?

And some of the unsettled land is unsuitable for either housing or
agriculture.
Or indeed windmills

Or, if it comes to it, nuclear power stations. Too far from the demand,
too far from the water, too likely to get flooded...

Yup. Fortunately you need about 1000 times less land area for a nuke
than a windmill farm.

30 nukes could run the entire UK grid at current levels and about 100
could run the whole country - if we could find and efficient way to make
diesel and petrol out of heat electricity water and carbon dioxide.


--
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 18/09/2012 14:04, djc wrote:
On 18/09/12 12:48, John Williamson wrote:

The market seems to be well off,green minded people who don't travel
much, with enough space to park the vehicle so that the power lead
doesn't cross any public land. That's just about all suburbs and no
inner cities anywhere except for well off people who live in blocks of
flats with their own parking. Which is a shame, because small electric
cars would be ideal for inner city dwellers.

Inner city dwellers €”I am one€” don't really need cars, there are buses
and taxis, and the necessities of life are largely within walking
distance. And these days inner city dwellers are more likely to be young
and economically and physically active rather than old and poor, so even
less excuse to drive everywhere.

Well I don't know about you, but over the years people have moved around
and my friends and family are spread around. What can be a twenty minute
trip by car to get together with friends or relatives can be a couple of
hours each way by public transport. For example, visiting one couple who
were less than twenty minutes away by car for an evening would have
meant a massively longer journey by bus and tram and less than 10
minutes there before catching the last public transport back!

Not only that but my work has moved numerous times - I did work in
Manchester city centre, but then have worked at various times up to 45
miles away, often starting earlier than public transport could possibly
get me there.

SteveW

On 20/09/2012 07:56, harry wrote:
On Sep 19, 2:12 pm, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 2:43:02 PM UTC+1, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 13:53:27 +0100, djc wrote:

But these electric cars aren't designed for driving across europe or

any great distance. They are for the wage slaves doing the M-F 9-5 25

mile round trip commute.

But the wage slaves are just the people who can only afford one car, so

it has to do all the other occasional, but so often vital, trips too.

So they use some of the money they save from the cheap energy, reduced

tax, etc on the day to day electric car to hire a more suitable vehicle

as required.

Figures were posted recently about how much one of these cars would save

someone communing into central London with, no congestion charge, free

parking and charging etc. I forget the numbers but it was several

thousand pounds...

I wonder which comedian came up with the figures.....

I'm also suspcious of this free charging, will it be free from home too?





--

It's obviously a kick start thing. But if it isn't done, we will be
left behind/back in the horse age..
You can't get it into your head, there is no alternative. Regardless
if the primary power is nuclear or windmills.

If the primary power is nuclear then using the power to produce
synthetic fuels to provide all of the advantages of petrol and diesel,
while being cleaner would seem to make sense. Pure electric vehicles
cannot (may never?) have the energy density and rapid refill times of
the "old" technology.

SteveW

On 20/09/2012 17:56, harry wrote:
On Sep 20, 9:51 am, Tim Streater wrote:

Snip

And CO2 does not support life
the last I heard.
So you die anyway.

Neither does Nitrogen and the air we breath is 80% made up of it! Out of
interest lack of CO2 can kill you too - too little of it and your body's
reflex to breath can fail.

SteveW

In article
..com, harry scribeth thus
On Sep 26, 2:11*pm, tony sayer wrote:
In article
.com, harry scribeth thus









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.

Thats err, a very scientific argument Harry;!...

It's an economic argument not scientific..

You should try the science one Harry the money one isn't that
convincing...


They could be made far more efficient with say neodymium magnets
instead of electromagnets. The air gaps in the magnetic circuit could
be reduced.

All costs money. More than people are prepared to pay when petrol is
cheap.


--
Tony Sayer

Just having an alternator with a clutch that cuts out when accelerating mean
the engine can be downsized and acceleration improved. *Also the starter
motors can be downsized as well (cheaper & less weight

That really going the make any real difference how much of a percentage
is that compared to the weight of the battery system. Course I suppose
once the cars rolling on leccy it can be bump started...

and power drawn from
the battery). *All this is easy to do, like the next model update could have
it all - Instead of a 1600cc the engine could be 1300cc.

--
Tony Sayer

The ancilliaries all have their own electric motors. They only run to
the level actually needed.
This is old hat. You can buy this stuff now.

And that power comes from where?...
--
Tony Sayer

On 15/09/2012 21:13, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Doctor Drivel invalid@not-
for-mail.invalid scribeth thus

"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 "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.


My 17 Y/O petrol engined Audi A6 is on is original engine transmission
and a lot else thanks...

Yes. In my youth, my parents had a succession of old cars, gradually
getting newer and newer ones over the decades. One car wrecked its
engine when a piece of the auxiliary belt broke off and went stright
through a tiny slit in the timing belt cover and one car had a second
hand gearbox to change it from three speed column shift to four speed
floor shift. Some were part-exed, but the vast majority reached the end
of their lives when the bodywork repairs were too much. None suffered
failure of any major components. These days the bodywork and the
mechanics are far better, it's getting so that you are unlikely to
change the clutch, never mind the gearbox in the life of a car! Its the
eventual failure of expensive electronic boxes that are likely to end
the lives of many modern cars, not the mechanical bits and pieces.

SteveW

In message
,
harry writes

You just can't get your head round the fact that there is no
alternative.

To nuclear power? No there isn't. In the medium term.
renewables will be dead in 5 years.

Tch you are a halfwit.
It would take ten years to build a nuclear power station, but it's not
going to happen.

dated Sept 1st 2012

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk...re/110312.aspx

e.g. "Government policy is that new nuclear power should be able to
contribute as much as possible to the UKs new capacity"

--
geoff

In article , SteveW steve@walker-
family.me.uk scribeth thus
On 15/09/2012 21:13, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Doctor Drivel invalid@not-
for-mail.invalid scribeth thus

"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 "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.


My 17 Y/O petrol engined Audi A6 is on is original engine transmission
and a lot else thanks...

Yes. In my youth, my parents had a succession of old cars, gradually
getting newer and newer ones over the decades. One car wrecked its
engine when a piece of the auxiliary belt broke off and went stright
through a tiny slit in the timing belt cover and one car had a second
hand gearbox to change it from three speed column shift to four speed
floor shift. Some were part-exed, but the vast majority reached the end
of their lives when the bodywork repairs were too much. None suffered
failure of any major components. These days the bodywork and the
mechanics are far better, it's getting so that you are unlikely to
change the clutch, never mind the gearbox in the life of a car! Its the
eventual failure of expensive electronic boxes that are likely to end
the lives of many modern cars, not the mechanical bits and pieces.


Yes and yes to most all of that!...

SteveW


--
Tony Sayer

SteveW wrote:
On 20/09/2012 07:56, harry wrote:
On Sep 19, 2:12 pm, whisky-dave wrote:
On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 2:43:02 PM UTC+1, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 13:53:27 +0100, djc wrote:

But these electric cars aren't designed for driving across europe or

any great distance. They are for the wage slaves doing the M-F 9-5 25

mile round trip commute.

But the wage slaves are just the people who can only afford one
car, so

it has to do all the other occasional, but so often vital, trips too.

So they use some of the money they save from the cheap energy, reduced

tax, etc on the day to day electric car to hire a more suitable vehicle

as required.

Figures were posted recently about how much one of these cars would
save

someone communing into central London with, no congestion charge, free

parking and charging etc. I forget the numbers but it was several

thousand pounds...

I wonder which comedian came up with the figures.....

I'm also suspcious of this free charging, will it be free from home too?





--

It's obviously a kick start thing. But if it isn't done, we will be
left behind/back in the horse age..
You can't get it into your head, there is no alternative. Regardless
if the primary power is nuclear or windmills.

If the primary power is nuclear then using the power to produce
synthetic fuels to provide all of the advantages of petrol and diesel,
while being cleaner would seem to make sense. Pure electric vehicles
cannot (may never?) have the energy density and rapid refill times of
the "old" technology.


That is essentially correct.

Until and unless some other way of storing energy beyond the ones we
know turns up. Something subatomic perhaps.

Because the ways we have right now favour chemical fuel, fossil or
synthetic.


SteveW



--
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.

SteveW wrote:
On 15/09/2012 21:13, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Doctor Drivel invalid@not-
for-mail.invalid scribeth thus

"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 "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.


My 17 Y/O petrol engined Audi A6 is on is original engine transmission
and a lot else thanks...

Yes. In my youth, my parents had a succession of old cars, gradually
getting newer and newer ones over the decades. One car wrecked its
engine when a piece of the auxiliary belt broke off and went stright
through a tiny slit in the timing belt cover and one car had a second
hand gearbox to change it from three speed column shift to four speed
floor shift. Some were part-exed, but the vast majority reached the end
of their lives when the bodywork repairs were too much. None suffered
failure of any major components. These days the bodywork and the
mechanics are far better, it's getting so that you are unlikely to
change the clutch, never mind the gearbox in the life of a car! Its the
eventual failure of expensive electronic boxes that are likely to end
the lives of many modern cars, not the mechanical bits and pieces.


Nope. My BIL got his vauxhall omega to 257,000 miles and the body fell
to pieces.

Engine was rattling a bit. A friend had a merc auto - 245k on that. You
could hear the big ends rattle on that one, so he traded it.


SteveW



--
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 26/09/2012 13:51, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Andy Champ
scribeth thus
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

Yes very. I was standing near a 25 kW load bank for a generator test and
that was bloody hot and throwing out a -Lot- of heat.

A piddling little one The 30MW loadbank that we used to test 24MW
generators used baths of chemically dosed water and adjustable insertion
electrodes, with the water being pumped in, continually overflowing and
being pumped through fanned coolers and back in. The column of steam
generated was impressive; the glow of the arcing electrodes gave a very
good impression of a fire at the base - the neighbouring houses called
the fire brigade more than once! The noise of the generator's RB-211,
its cooling fans, ventilation fans and the lubrication system's gear
pumps had to be heard to be believed - taking measurements within inches
of the casing of the RB-211 was somewhat warm (there was no external
casing, just the bare engine) and rather noisy.

SteveW

In article , SteveW steve@walker-
family.me.uk scribeth thus
On 26/09/2012 13:51, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Andy Champ
scribeth thus
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

Yes very. I was standing near a 25 kW load bank for a generator test and
that was bloody hot and throwing out a -Lot- of heat.

A piddling little one The 30MW loadbank that we used to test 24MW
generators used baths of chemically dosed water and adjustable insertion
electrodes, with the water being pumped in, continually overflowing and
being pumped through fanned coolers and back in. The column of steam
generated was impressive; the glow of the arcing electrodes gave a very
good impression of a fire at the base - the neighbouring houses called
the fire brigade more than once! The noise of the generator's RB-211,
its cooling fans, ventilation fans and the lubrication system's gear
pumps had to be heard to be believed - taking measurements within inches
of the casing of the RB-211 was somewhat warm (there was no external
casing, just the bare engine) and rather noisy.

SteveW


Impressive!..

A friend of mine was studying engineering at Imperial college some time
ago now and he related to a time where they were at a Jet test facility
and had a lot of respect for the bloke from Rolls Royce who was doing
some "fine tuning" right next to the engine under what seemed take off
power!....

Just how much power does a 211 make and what's the efficiency like?..
--
Tony Sayer

On 25/09/2012 16:55, harry wrote:
There will be a backup, gas turbine eg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pembroke_Power_Station
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connah%..._Power_Station
Can be quickly started and high turndown ratio.

Those open cycle gas turbines are way less efficient than the ones that
feed a steam boiler from the hot exhaust.

There's a trade-off; run an intermittent source with open cycle
turbines, or run a combined cycle station at double the efficiency, and
forget the windmills.

Andy

On 26/09/2012 16:43, harry wrote:
Are you illiterate? Don't you read stuff? There are no energy running
costs with renewable energy sources.

So you don't have to lube the bearings on a windmill?

Besides as the equipment has a finite life it has to be amortized over
its operational lifetime, which certainly _feels_ like a running cost.

Andy

On 26/09/2012 22:42, tony sayer wrote:
In article , SteveW steve@walker-
family.me.uk scribeth thus
On 26/09/2012 13:51, tony sayer wrote:
In article , Andy Champ
scribeth thus
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

Yes very. I was standing near a 25 kW load bank for a generator test and
that was bloody hot and throwing out a -Lot- of heat.

A piddling little one The 30MW loadbank that we used to test 24MW
generators used baths of chemically dosed water and adjustable insertion
electrodes, with the water being pumped in, continually overflowing and
being pumped through fanned coolers and back in. The column of steam
generated was impressive; the glow of the arcing electrodes gave a very
good impression of a fire at the base - the neighbouring houses called
the fire brigade more than once! The noise of the generator's RB-211,
its cooling fans, ventilation fans and the lubrication system's gear
pumps had to be heard to be believed - taking measurements within inches
of the casing of the RB-211 was somewhat warm (there was no external
casing, just the bare engine) and rather noisy.

SteveW


Impressive!..

A friend of mine was studying engineering at Imperial college some time
ago now and he related to a time where they were at a Jet test facility
and had a lot of respect for the bloke from Rolls Royce who was doing
some "fine tuning" right next to the engine under what seemed take off
power!....

Just how much power does a 211 make and what's the efficiency like?..

I don't know the efficiency, although you could work it out - I'm fairly
sure that at 24MW we were burning about 120 litres a minute of red
diesel. The system was not optimised for that though, as it was intended
for a North Sea oil-rig and to start on diesel, then switch to natural
gas as the platform began producing.

I also don't know what the RB-211 is actually capable of, as the setup
was of an industrial RB-211 exhausting into a Dresser-Rand gas turbine
running at 3600 rpm and driving a Brush ac generator to produce 11kV,
3-phase, 60 Hz. I don't know whether the RB-211 or the turbine was the
limiting factor or even if either was being fully utilised.

There was a further 1.2MW diesel driven (Black Start) unit to provide
electrical and hydraulic power to start the main units. That was started
by a three shot hydraulic/Nitrogen bladder accumulator setup. If all
three shots failed, then they could be pumped back up by hand!

The units were for Shell Gannet.

SteveW

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I had to fit new big end shells and main bearing shells to a Rover V8
engine about ten years ago.

Only the worst of ignorant ****s would fit new bearing shells to
anything. If the shells need replacing, the bearing surface is also
worn/damaged.


No.

Crankshafts are hard steel,. bearing caps are IIRC lead indium plated,
they wear much sooner.

Fallacy. And I thought you knew something about cars.

If you let them wear to the coppper backing of course you WILL score the
crank.

And copper is harder than hard steel?

Having rebuilt more engines than I can remember in my time, I've never
found a case where replacing shells only when there are signs of bearing
problems works. Only time I'll replace bearing shells without a crank
grind is when carrying out other work which requires splitting the
bearings. Because they are cheap, it makes sense to replace them - in much
the same way as you fit new gaskets.

In the bad old BMC days I used to replace big ends at 30k, mains at 60k
and have a bloody good look at the crank and bores at 120k, if the whole
car lasted that long.

You replaced them on spec - or when there was signs of wear?

--
*Life is hard; then you nap

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I had to fit new big end shells and main bearing shells to a Rover V8
engine about ten years ago.
Only the worst of ignorant ****s would fit new bearing shells to
anything. If the shells need replacing, the bearing surface is also
worn/damaged.


No.

Crankshafts are hard steel,. bearing caps are IIRC lead indium plated,
they wear much sooner.

Fallacy. And I thought you knew something about cars.

http://www.austin-healeys.com/austin...ine-details-2/

says I am in fact completely right.


If you let them wear to the coppper backing of course you WILL score the
crank.

And copper is harder than hard steel?

Dont be silly, the copper is plated on the steel shells first then the
lead-indium is plated onto that. But if you can see the copper the
bearing is finished and its LIKELY the steel shells have started to
score the crank.


Having rebuilt more engines than I can remember in my time, I've never
found a case where replacing shells only when there are signs of bearing
problems works. Only time I'll replace bearing shells without a crank
grind is when carrying out other work which requires splitting the
bearings. Because they are cheap, it makes sense to replace them - in much
the same way as you fit new gaskets.

In the bad old BMC days I used to replace big ends at 30k, mains at 60k
and have a bloody good look at the crank and bores at 120k, if the whole
car lasted that long.

You replaced them on spec - or when there was signs of wear?

It turned out to be the same thing Dave, I'd drop the sump and if I
could find any rock in the big ends I'd drop the caps and replace the
shells - not a big job.

at 60K I replaced the mains on spec, and that too is doable - by
dripping the main bearing caps - just.

I did this because the haynes manuals of the time recommended that you did.



--
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.

En el artículo , The Natural Philosopher
escribió:

[solar panels]

Sadly they wont be able to be made.

The Chinese have a massive glut of them. There's a trade row going on
at the mo 'cos they're being accused of dumping them on Europe.

You have to wonder, if they're so good, why they aren't using them
themselves instead of building hundreds of new nuke plants.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

En el artículo , John Williamson
escribió:

Dam from the hills North of London to the Downs South of London. Flood
the Thames Valley. A desirable side effect would be to get rid of all
the politicians

And Drivel.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

On Sep 26, 5:05*pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,









*harry wrote:
On Sep 26, 2:22*pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
*"Doctor *Drivel" wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
...

All solar panels are 100% efficient as the energy you get is free.

No, on your calculation it would make the efficiency = infinity.

Once again the energy you get is FREE.

So is oil.

There is Capital costs in extracting the oil. *Some oil unviable. *Once
oil
is burnt it is gone. *Not the case with sunshine every dawn.

There is capital costs too with the solar panels, chump.
Are you illiterate? *Don't you read stuff? There are no energy running
costs with renewable energy sources.

No one maintains the windmills then? In particular the offshore ones,
subject to all that salt water? No one has to do maintenance on hydro
dams and their gennies? The Aussies won't have to maintain their
solar/molten salt setups, if they ever build them?


So somehow we have moved from maintaining PV solar panels to wind
turbines?

No-one maintains steam boilers?
No-one maintains oil rigs?
No-one maintains coal mines?

On Sep 26, 5:12*pm, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
* *harry wrote:

You missed the fact that bearing failure is most unusual on a modern
engine? But since you are such an expert, perhaps you'd give details of
when this last happened to you or yours?
Simpler is always more reliable all else beingequal.
I had to fit new big end shells and main bearing shells to a Rover V8
engine about ten years ago.

Only the worst of ignorant ****s would fit new bearing shells to anything..
If the shells need replacing, the bearing surface is also worn/damaged.

But next time, don't let it run out of oil. And your electric pump won't
help there either.


The crankshaft was fine. I ran he car another 10,000 miles before
sold it.
All down to how soon it is before you notice it twerp.

On Sep 26, 5:26*pm, John Rumm wrote:
On 25/09/2012 10:27, harry wrote:









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.

Have you been taking dribble pills?

How do you suppose the van load of gear and its crew gets to each wind
turbine to maintain it? What about the grid workers looking after all
those extra miles of expensive copper?

They can't just turn up at work in the morning and do the whole power
station when is spread over every bit of previously green and pleasant
wilderness.

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.

Of course - they know how to milk subsidies and incentive schemes even
better than you. Not only that, they get to supply all the fuel to
maintain the kit, and that to keep the lights on when the wind is not
blowing.

--

So we've suddenly changed the topic to maintenance?
Well a wind turbine needs far less maintenance that a steam boiler.
And Solar PV panels need nil maintenance.

Also they need no plant attendants, no buildings to house them in. no
cooling towers and no chimneys. All of which require maintenance.

Sad the way you clutch at straws.
You're getting as bad as TurNiP/Drivel.

On Sep 26, 6:27*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
harry wrote:
On Sep 26, 2:11 pm, tony sayer wrote:
In article
.com, harry scribeth thus

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.
Thats err, a very scientific argument Harry;!...

It's an economic argument not scientific..

They could be made far more efficient with say neodymium magnets
instead of electromagnets.

Not really.

* The air gaps in the magnetic circuit could

be reduced.

You dont know much about electric motor or alternator design do you?



All costs money. *More than people are prepared to pay when petrol is
cheap.

I'm way ahead of you TurNiP.