On 25/04/2014 10:58, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
newshound wrote:
On 25/04/2014 00:12, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
It only becomes viable where electricity is produced in abundance by
'free' renewables, like wind, water or solar.

ITYM inbcedribly expensive renewables:-)

We were promised 'meter free' electricity when nuclear first arrived.

No we weren't.

Yes we were.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_cheap_to_meter


Which, as the link explains, was based on *fusion*. And no-one has even
produced that commercially yet.

You think politicians of the day knew the difference?

That claim was made publically at the introduction of nuclear. And not
qualified with 'some day if we're lucky'.

It was Lewis Strauss, not a politician, and Wikipedia makes it clear
that he did know the difference.

On 25/04/14 12:24, Clive George wrote:
On 25/04/2014 12:14, Rick Hughes wrote:

Maybe it will never be adopted, I had a rotary engine in my RX8 ....
fantastic piece of engineering, so small so powerful, incredible rev
range, just just not taken off with anybody other than Mazda.

How efficient was it? What were service intervals like compared to a
conventional engine? How long would it last before a rebuild? An engine
needs to do well at these as well as size and power in order to be truly
successful.

+1 TCO

Total Cost of Ownership.

And of course that includes tooling up to make them



--
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 25/04/14 15:31, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
You think something has to be original? I don't care who first used
the expression - it was used here by politicians and in the press and
radio. Without any qualification about the type of reaction.

So, said originally by someone who should have known better, and then
picked up by dumb clucks who didn't know any better.

Just the same as today. Those who advocate the use of nuclear can't
foresee the future and the possibility of a disaster.

Of course they can.

So far we have only had one 'disaster' and that only killed 70 people.,
which is better than ANY other technology.


And the costs of
decommissioning old plant etc.

Again its peanuts and is exactly foreseeable. Or WOULD be if the greeny
lefty bureaucrats didn't keep inventing ways to make it as expensive as
possible.


All of which can add to the unit cost of
electricity. It's pretty well as saying renewables are free.


I think you meana can be MADE to add to the unit cost.


"Too cheap to meter" is in the same category as "in 30 years, we won't
be eating meals as we know them today, there'll be a pill for your
meat, another for the spuds, and a third for the veg".

Well, for a very long time we had 'free' water. Or rather a fixed price
regardless of use. Not too difficult to imagine something like the same
could be applied to electricity. Remember at one time petrol in some
countries was cheaper than water. Even in the US at one time it was very
low cost. So going back 60 years or so it wasn't an unreasonable guess.


With nuclear there is a case for costing it that way. The fuel cost is
trivial. Once you have built the reactors (at public expense) you might
almost say 'and the electricity is free'..





--
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 25/04/14 17:08, Johny B Good wrote:
I'm totally aware of the detractions of "Unsprung mass" but a modern
pancake electric motor is surprisingly light for its power output and
a lot of the structural mass of the wheel can form the major
components of the motor. Properly integrated, a 'Power Wheel' need not
have to weigh any more than a cheap pressed steel wheel in common use
today.


+1

take away a massive steel disc brake cos regenerative braking absorbs
most of the power, take away a bloody great axle to transmit power and
you have pretty much made up for the weight of the motor. Or at least
those bits that go beyond the 'rim' needed to encase the motor and hold
the tyre.

Manufacturing costs are more what might throw you: a several hundred
pole motor needed for starting torque will be fussier than a 2-3 pole
and a reduction gear.




--
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 ,
newshound wrote:
That claim was made publically at the introduction of nuclear. And not
qualified with 'some day if we're lucky'.

It was Lewis Strauss, not a politician, and Wikipedia makes it clear
that he did know the difference.

I'm not really interested who first said it. It was repeated by more than
one politician as 'gospel'.

--
*When cheese gets its picture taken, what does it say? *

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

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
take away a massive steel disc brake cos regenerative braking absorbs
most of the power,

You don't need massive steel disc brakes for moderate retardation. What
you do need them for is a panic stop from 90 mph. And regenerative braking
ain't going to do that.

--
*Elephants are the only mammals that can't jump *

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

On 25/04/2014 16:43, Tim Streater wrote:
Should water/electricity etc be metered? I'd say yes as it discourages
waste. Of course you then have the cost of metering it. But since we
are human beings who are inherently lazy, too lazy to spend time on
minimising usage if they don't have to or they are teenagers, I'd say
that is the lesser evil.

If electricity were free (that is, you might pay some sort of standing
charge for the infrastructure to deliver it, but that charge is
independent of usage), how much would usage increase?

People leaving heating on and opening windows to cool down?

A/C cooling unoccupied rooms 24/7?

Gardens bathed in light all night?

Greenhouses with intense growlights (as appropriate for whatever crop is
being grown)?

Dishwashers run for a single cup and teaspoon?

Everyone charging up their electric vehicles at every opportunity?
(Surely would be a big impetus towards electric vehicles of some sort.)

Stills to make ultra-soft water?

We are generally aware of the heat island effects of cities. How far
would they go with free electricity?

--
Rod

"Rick Hughes" wrote in message
...
On 23/04/2014 14:36, Nightjar wrote:


One thing I noticed is that it has a single, asymmetric counterbalance
weight, which must make it inherently unbalanced.
Colin Bignell



However it runs with almost zero vibration ... so they must have fixed
that ....... watch the coin balance on the vid on main page ...
http://www.dukeengines.com/

The big advantage I think they have on balance is that the con rods only
move off line by 3% ....

" An almost perfectly sinusoidal piston motion leads to a near absence of
secondary and higher-order unbalanced piston/conrod forces.

• Counter-rotating cylinder groups and crankshart provide cancellation of
torque reactions and gyroscopic forces during engine speed flutuations and
vehicle maneuvers. " (sp)



Maybe it will never be adopted, I had a rotary engine in my RX8 ....
fantastic piece of engineering, so small so powerful, incredible rev
range, just just not taken off with anybody other than Mazda.


I heard that the MPG was not good with Wankel engines?

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
It only becomes viable where electricity is produced in abundance
by
'free' renewables, like wind, water or solar.

ITYM inbcedribly expensive renewables:-)

We were promised 'meter free' electricity when nuclear first arrived.

No we weren't.

Yes we were.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_cheap_to_meter

Yes, I've posted a link to this before, when harry was also trying the
same b/s. Suggest you read it more carefully:

We were told the same lie in this country too as I've told you.
Searched out a link.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/792209.stm

Suggest you try to get your facts right.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
You think something has to be original? I don't care who first used
the expression - it was used here by politicians and in the press and
radio. Without any qualification about the type of reaction.

So, said originally by someone who should have known better, and then
picked up by dumb clucks who didn't know any better.

Just the same as today. Those who advocate the use of nuclear can't
foresee the future and the possibility of a disaster. And the costs of
decommissioning old plant etc. All of which can add to the unit cost of
electricity. It's pretty well as saying renewables are free.


The energy to power renewables is free, always will be and is truely
endless.
The future cost will not rise (it is falling), unlike fossil fuels and
nuclear power.
No-one can take it away from us.
Decommisioning renewable energy plant is cheap and re-cycleable.

Power stations always cost money.
The nuclear industry has always lied to us, is still lying and always will.

"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 25/04/2014 08:38, harryagain wrote:


There is no regeneration as with battery electric cars


No reason why not.

Are you mad? Where/how would any power be stored?

"Johny B Good" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Apr 2014 08:38:34 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

====snip===


There is no regeneration as with battery electric cars

I made no reference to KERS until the paragraph below.


I'm not sure why a common electric motor is being used when each
wheel can have its own built in motor fed from a sophisticated power
management controller with KERS and a modest capacity rechargable
battery to improve stop start urban journey fuel economy. There's no
need for energy inefficient mechanical drive trains with electric
propulsion.

You should have noticed that I alluded to the modest sized
rechargable mentioned by Honda which is used to flatten the peak
demand on the fuel cell which nicely lends itself to this function.
Admittedly, the gains seen in F1 aren't going to be as great since
normal driving doesn't routinely involve rapid decelerations from
200mph down to 50 or 60mph but it can help mitigate braking energy
losses in stop start traffic as well as improve energy consumption
when travelling a hilly route involving uphill ascent and downhill
descent.


Motor in wheel technology is totally stupid.
The ideal car wheel/suspension would be massless, heavier wheels just make
cars uncontrollable and uncomfortable.

I'm totally aware of the detractions of "Unsprung mass" but a modern
pancake electric motor is surprisingly light for its power output and
a lot of the structural mass of the wheel can form the major
components of the motor. Properly integrated, a 'Power Wheel' need not
have to weigh any more than a cheap pressed steel wheel in common use
today.

When the over-riding need is for efficiency rather than sports car
type performance, the slight trade off in handling and ride comfort is
well worth accepting.

The motor is subjected to all the bumps and jars and also to water and
salt.

As is the case for brake lines and calipers and disks. A program of
R&D will nicely take care of those issues, including the unsprung mass
issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsprung_weight


The motors used are not "common electric motors" either.
They already have a sophisticated control system.

That is a 'given' but a seperate motor in each wheel eliminates the
mass associated with CV joints in the mechanical drive train and
reduces the 'gearbox' to a matter of electrical contactors and
switchmode voltage control from the controller unit. No space
consuming prop shafts and bulky differential transfer boxes and you
get the benefit of "All Wheel Drive" (AWD). A common[1] motor is just
an intermediate 'proof of concept' proving technology at the moment.


Transporting/storing hydrogen presents almost insurmountable probelms.
And on site generation has problems of its own.
Any cars would likel be more expensive with poorer performance than
current
battery electric cars

That's total and utter bollicks.

There is no prospectof regeneration with a hydrogen car.

I assume you're referring to KERS. Again, you're only right in that
there currently isn't an effective way to turn the electrical energy
back into hydrogen fuel but totally wrong in thinking that KERS can't
be used when Honda have provided a modest capacity rechargable battery
to smooth out the demand peaks on the fuel cell which can do double
duty for KERS.

Which shows how impractical fuel cell motor cars are.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 25/04/14 17:08, Johny B Good wrote:
I'm totally aware of the detractions of "Unsprung mass" but a modern
pancake electric motor is surprisingly light for its power output and
a lot of the structural mass of the wheel can form the major
components of the motor. Properly integrated, a 'Power Wheel' need not
have to weigh any more than a cheap pressed steel wheel in common use
today.


+1

take away a massive steel disc brake cos regenerative braking absorbs most
of the power, take away a bloody great axle to transmit power and you have
pretty much made up for the weight of the motor. Or at least those bits
that go beyond the 'rim' needed to encase the motor and hold the tyre.

Drivel.
The disc brake is still needed for emergency stops.
It is possible to have inboard disks with some layouts but there are the
same problems as with ICE cars.
Only the outer part of the axle is unsprung weight in most suspension
/transmission designs. (ie non live axle)

On 25/04/14 23:55, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
take away a massive steel disc brake cos regenerative braking absorbs
most of the power,

You don't need massive steel disc brakes for moderate retardation. What
you do need them for is a panic stop from 90 mph. And regenerative braking
ain't going to do that.

Oh yes it is.

you put a short across a leccy motor and it stops dead in its tracks mate.

the disc brakes are there to get to to a final stop, not to absorb the
bulk of the 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.

In article ,
harryagain wrote:
The energy to power renewables is free, always will be and is truely
endless.
The future cost will not rise (it is falling), unlike fossil fuels and
nuclear power.
No-one can take it away from us.

As regards wind, God does frequently. Same with the sun. The only reliable
'free' energy would be the tide.

--
*Young at heart -- slightly older in other places

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

In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
You don't need massive steel disc brakes for moderate retardation.
What you do need them for is a panic stop from 90 mph. And
regenerative braking ain't going to do that.

Oh yes it is.

you put a short across a leccy motor and it stops dead in its tracks
mate.

No it doesn't. The braking effort can't exceed the maximum torque the
motor can produce.

the disc brakes are there to get to to a final stop, not to absorb the
bulk of the energy.

Nonsense.

--
*Suicidal twin kills sister by mistake.

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

On 26/04/14 11:22, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
harryagain wrote:
The energy to power renewables is free, always will be and is truely
endless.
The future cost will not rise (it is falling), unlike fossil fuels and
nuclear power.
No-one can take it away from us.

As regards wind, God does frequently. Same with the sun. The only reliable
'free' energy would be the tide.

That isn't reliable, just predictable.

Think of fossil/nuclear as employees who always come in on time except
when sick.

Wind is an employee who comes in and works as long as they feel like it
totally randomly needing a huge office with lots of cables to be
permanently available for when they do.

Solar is a rather useless employee who comes in at 9 and goes home at 5
and leaves a huge office empty all night every night, and doesn't work
hard at all in winter.

Tidal is someone who works a shift twice a day, doesn't produce a lot
and still takes up a huge office.

None of the above are reliable in the sense that you can call em up at 4
a.m on a cold February morning and say 'need you in right now'.

You still need your fossil zero hours contractors ready to fill any gaps
at very high expense, because they ARE zero hours contractors and have
to make a living out of emergencies and short working.

Predictability is not reliability. A car that predictably fails to
start on cold mornings is predictable, but its not reliable.

A stopped watch is predictably correct twice a day, but its not reliable.


You have somehow twisted the meaning of reliable to mean 'something you
can rely on to let you down'.



--
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 26/04/14 11:25, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
You don't need massive steel disc brakes for moderate retardation.
What you do need them for is a panic stop from 90 mph. And
regenerative braking ain't going to do that.

Oh yes it is.

you put a short across a leccy motor and it stops dead in its tracks
mate.

No it doesn't. The braking effort can't exceed the maximum torque the
motor can produce.


Oh yes it does.

You risk of course burning out the windings doing it, because you are
WELL over the peak current its rated for and it WILL get bloody hot of
left doing that for any period, but for an emergency stop, yes its
possible to do a lot more than normal peak torque. AND in the end you
are ONLY talking about torque up to tyre slippage. Once you lock the
wheels, the torque vanishes, and you end up in a partial slip mode.

The trains that use that system have the disc brakes there largely to
achieve the final stop, but not to absorb the bulk of the energy.



the disc brakes are there to get to to a final stop, not to absorb the
bulk of the energy.

Nonsense.

more twaddle from the man with his head up his arse.

Regenerative braking torque is entirely down to the peak current you can
let the motor generate without burning out. do a 10 second burst, its
the same as a disc brake, that is a hell of a lot more than it can in
general dissipate if you are on a racing track, dong it every few
seconds unless its a Porsche. Do 5 emergency stops from 140mph in a
Jaguar saloon, and like as not the brakes are gone. You need a Porsche
and vented disks to do that.


--
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 message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 26/04/14 11:25, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
You don't need massive steel disc brakes for moderate retardation.
What you do need them for is a panic stop from 90 mph. And
regenerative braking ain't going to do that.

Oh yes it is.

you put a short across a leccy motor and it stops dead in its tracks
mate.

No it doesn't. The braking effort can't exceed the maximum torque the
motor can produce.


Oh yes it does.

You risk of course burning out the windings doing it, because you are
WELL over the peak current its rated for and it WILL get bloody hot of
left doing that for any period, but for an emergency stop, yes its
possible to do a lot more than normal peak torque. AND in the end you
are ONLY talking about torque up to tyre slippage. Once you lock the
wheels, the torque vanishes, and you end up in a partial slip mode.

Yes. Look up DC injection braking for rapid stop on machine tools.

The trains that use that system have the disc brakes there largely to
achieve the final stop, but not to absorb the bulk of the energy.

AC machines usually have a *starts/hour* figure depending on the thermal
dissipation from the windings and the limiting temperature rating of the
insulation.



the disc brakes are there to get to to a final stop, not to absorb the
bulk of the energy.

Nonsense.

snip

Regenerative braking torque is entirely down to the peak current you
can let the motor generate without burning out. do a 10 second burst,
its the same as a disc brake, that is a hell of a lot more than it can
in general dissipate if you are on a racing track, dong it every few
seconds unless its a Porsche. Do 5 emergency stops from 140mph in a
Jaguar saloon, and like as not the brakes are gone. You need a Porsche
and vented disks to do that.

Quite.



--
Tim Lamb

On 26/04/2014 11:22, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
harryagain wrote:
The energy to power renewables is free, always will be and is truely
endless.
The future cost will not rise (it is falling), unlike fossil fuels and
nuclear power.
No-one can take it away from us.

As regards wind, God does frequently. Same with the sun. The only reliable
'free' energy would be the tide.



The only "free" energy we get is from the Sun.
Unfortunately its not free to use for anything other than growing plants
or to see by in the day.
Any other use requires some conversion process which isn't free.
Even the "free" solar energy stored in fossil fuels isn't free when you
try to use it.
The greens think its free as long as someone else is paying for it, not
that its actually free.

The only energy source we have that isn't from the Sun is nuclear as
that comes from other stars not our Sun.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
As regards wind, God does frequently. Same with the sun. The only reliable
'free' energy would be the tide.

That isn't reliable, just predictable.

Think of fossil/nuclear as employees who always come in on time except
when sick.

Strange simile.

Wind is an employee who comes in and works as long as they feel like it
totally randomly needing a huge office with lots of cables to be
permanently available for when they do.

Solar is a rather useless employee who comes in at 9 and goes home at 5
and leaves a huge office empty all night every night, and doesn't work
hard at all in winter.

Tidal is someone who works a shift twice a day, doesn't produce a lot
and still takes up a huge office.

None of the above are reliable in the sense that you can call em up at 4
a.m on a cold February morning and say 'need you in right now' .

What you seem to forget is we don't own the raw materials needed for
nuclear power. Same as gas or oil. We have to import all or some of it.
Rather like the workforce turning up on time to find the factory closed,
if supplies are withheld for any reason. As has happened in the past...

--
*I'm already visualizing the duct tape over your mouth

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

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Oh yes it does.

You risk of course burning out the windings doing it, because you are
WELL over the peak current its rated for and it WILL get bloody hot of
left doing that for any period, but for an emergency stop, yes its
possible to do a lot more than normal peak torque. AND in the end you
are ONLY talking about torque up to tyre slippage. Once you lock the
wheels, the torque vanishes, and you end up in a partial slip mode.

The trains that use that system have the disc brakes there largely to
achieve the final stop, but not to absorb the bulk of the energy.

FFS, a train takes ages to stop. Lack of friction between the wheels and
track. Nothing like a vehicle on a road. Which can better 1G when braking.

--
*The man who fell into an upholstery machine is fully recovered*

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

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
We were told the same lie in this country too as I've told you.
Searched out a link.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/792209.stm

Suggest you try to get your facts right.

This was an official government statement, was it, backed up with a
plan showing why the statement was true and how it was to be achieved,
eh?

No?

**** me how astonishing.

What politician's statement ever are? Unless of course they are saying
something you happen to believe in.

--
*A conscience is what hurts when all your other parts feel so good *

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

On 26/04/14 13:07, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
As regards wind, God does frequently. Same with the sun. The only reliable
'free' energy would be the tide.

That isn't reliable, just predictable.

Think of fossil/nuclear as employees who always come in on time except
when sick.

Strange simile.

Wind is an employee who comes in and works as long as they feel like it
totally randomly needing a huge office with lots of cables to be
permanently available for when they do.

Solar is a rather useless employee who comes in at 9 and goes home at 5
and leaves a huge office empty all night every night, and doesn't work
hard at all in winter.

Tidal is someone who works a shift twice a day, doesn't produce a lot
and still takes up a huge office.

None of the above are reliable in the sense that you can call em up at 4
a.m on a cold February morning and say 'need you in right now' .

What you seem to forget is we don't own the raw materials needed for
nuclear power. Same as gas or oil. We have to import all or some of it.
Rather like the workforce turning up on time to find the factory closed,
if supplies are withheld for any reason. As has happened in the past...



we currently own more than enough plutonium to run the country for a decade.

The actual raw cost of uranium is around $50/kg IIRC.

That represents something like 0.1p per unit electricity generated. All
the rest of the cost is in refining it and manufacturing rods and
recycling them. Even so the French reckon that the TOTAL cost of the
fuel cycle is only 16% of the cost of the electricity -the rest is capex
on the reactor, maintenance and decommissioning.

So in an emergency we could EASILY reopen some of the worlds first
uranium mines in Cornwall and Devon, and mine uranium at $100/kg or
whatever. Thus raising electricity prices by 0.1p a unit.


AS well as recycling the huge amount of fissile and fertile material we
have already at Sellafield. Which is sitting there largely because it
cost more to recycle than to import fresh yellowcake.


You *are* drivel, AICM£5






--
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 26/04/14 13:09, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Oh yes it does.

You risk of course burning out the windings doing it, because you are
WELL over the peak current its rated for and it WILL get bloody hot of
left doing that for any period, but for an emergency stop, yes its
possible to do a lot more than normal peak torque. AND in the end you
are ONLY talking about torque up to tyre slippage. Once you lock the
wheels, the torque vanishes, and you end up in a partial slip mode.

The trains that use that system have the disc brakes there largely to
achieve the final stop, but not to absorb the bulk of the energy.

FFS, a train takes ages to stop. Lack of friction between the wheels and
track. Nothing like a vehicle on a road. Which can better 1G when braking.

straw man.


--
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 26/04/14 13:27, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
As regards wind, God does frequently. Same with the sun. The only
reliable
'free' energy would be the tide.

That isn't reliable, just predictable.

Think of fossil/nuclear as employees who always come in on time
except when sick.

Strange simile.

Wind is an employee who comes in and works as long as they feel like
it totally randomly needing a huge office with lots of cables to be
permanently available for when they do.

Solar is a rather useless employee who comes in at 9 and goes home
at 5 and leaves a huge office empty all night every night, and
doesn't work hard at all in winter.

Tidal is someone who works a shift twice a day, doesn't produce a
lot and still takes up a huge office.

None of the above are reliable in the sense that you can call em up
at 4 a.m on a cold February morning and say 'need you in right now' .

What you seem to forget is we don't own the raw materials needed for
nuclear power.

But we need considerably *less* of it than other fuels. And with
reprocessing, considerably less than *that*.

The oceans of the world contain 4 billyun tons of uranium. At some
point it becomes worth extracting it.


Japs reckon $200/kg.

And there is thorium, and breeder reactors.


WE haven't even picked the low hanging fruit of nuclear yet, just picked
up what was lying on the ground...

Given the world population cant expand much more for other reasons and
so we can sort of take today's populations and multiply it by a per
capita energy of a typical European lifestyle and predict there is
enough EASILY ACCESSIBLE fissile and fertile material to run the world
for 3-5000 years which is marginally longer than civilisation has
existed to date.

And that's with known existing technology.

It is likely that even the boffins we have today will be able to get
fusion working in a thousand years or so.

There is no escaping the facts. Ex of carbon fuels, the power technology
that generates the most for the least cost and is the easiest to
stockpile fuel for and offers the greatest energy security is nuclear power.


If civilisation has a future at all, its a nuclear powered one.

And all over the world people with slightly more than half a brain are
doing the same sums and quietly building as many reactors as they can.
There's no rush yet, but it will come.

Simply because nothing else is better when you remove carbon based
fossil fuel.

Something else may come along, but right now renewable energy is way too
expensive and unreliable - and the unreliability cannot be fixed except
by combining it with some energy store, which makes the total cost
approximately double what the ecobollox spouters would have you believe.

And if that energy store is imported gas and coal, it does **** all for
energy security.

AS for the ridiculous proposal that DECC is currently floating, that we
build 50GW of nuclear and add 150GW of intermittent renewable energy to
it, it is so unbelievably stupid as to defy belief.

Why would you turn down one very expensive zero carbon generator just to
allow a 'renwable source' even MORE expensively to take over?

Of course the answer lies in the EU and 'renewable obligations'

German wind mill and solar panel companies and Russian gas companies
bent the ear of the greens and whispered that renewable energy was the
only Green Thing, and they all lobbied for a 'renewable obligation'

No one actually cared to really try and reduce emissions: If so they
could have looked at Switzerland and France - hydro and massively
nuclear - to realise that that was the way to de carbonise.

But Germany doesn't make reactors any more.

So bang goes nuclear power.

Greed stupidity and short term corporate profit have almost destroyed
Europeans ability to generate electricity.

With the Gremans leading the way off the cliff edge of political expedience.

Good luck with that.






--
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 ,
Tim Streater wrote:
What you seem to forget is we don't own the raw materials needed for
nuclear power.

But we need considerably *less* of it than other fuels. And with
reprocessing, considerably less than *that*.

The actual quantity matters not one jot if we don't own the source.

The oceans of the world contain 4 billyun tons of uranium. At some
point it becomes worth extracting it.

At some point 'renewables' become worth investing in too. And methods of
storing electricity if made from renewables which are unpredictable.

--
*If you can't see my mirrors, I'm doing my hair*

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

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
FFS, a train takes ages to stop. Lack of friction between the wheels
and track. Nothing like a vehicle on a road. Which can better 1G when
braking.

straw man.

Perhaps you'd be happy driving a vehicle on the motorway which could only
achieve the same retardation as a train. Please let others know when you
do, as it would be an MOT failure - and by a vast margin.

--
*Honk if you love peace and quiet*

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

On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 13:25:19 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article om,
"dennis@home" wrote:

On 26/04/2014 11:22, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
harryagain wrote:
The energy to power renewables is free, always will be and is truely
endless.
The future cost will not rise (it is falling), unlike fossil fuels and
nuclear power.
No-one can take it away from us.

As regards wind, God does frequently. Same with the sun. The only reliable
'free' energy would be the tide.

The only "free" energy we get is from the Sun.
Unfortunately its not free to use for anything other than growing plants
or to see by in the day.
Any other use requires some conversion process which isn't free.
Even the "free" solar energy stored in fossil fuels isn't free when you
try to use it.
The greens think its free as long as someone else is paying for it, not
that its actually free.

And socialists think it's free if the government is paying for it.

The only energy source we have that isn't from the Sun is nuclear as
that comes from other stars not our Sun.

Wrong tense (_came_ from other stars) but otherwise correct. :-)

Yes. Supernovas, to be precise.
--
Regards, J B Good

On 26/04/14 14:43, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
What you seem to forget is we don't own the raw materials needed for
nuclear power.

But we need considerably *less* of it than other fuels. And with
reprocessing, considerably less than *that*.

The actual quantity matters not one jot if we don't own the source.

The oceans of the world contain 4 billyun tons of uranium. At some
point it becomes worth extracting it.

At some point 'renewables' become worth investing in too.
No they don't.

Any more than its worth investing in horse drawn carriages, hot air
balloon airlines or sailing ships with 200 crew to transport 500 tonnes.

There is always a better cheaper alternative.



And methods of
storing electricity if made from renewables which are unpredictable.


Right so we take unreliable renewables already two to five times the
true cost of nuclear and add the storage that nuclear intrinsically
has, but that renewables don't, to make it 6-10 times the cost.

Golly. I guess that qualifies for a Nobel prize in economics.


LeftyThink: Failure is a success we just haven't spent enough of
somebody else's money on ...yet.



--
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 26/04/14 14:45, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
FFS, a train takes ages to stop. Lack of friction between the wheels
and track. Nothing like a vehicle on a road. Which can better 1G when
braking.

straw man.

Perhaps you'd be happy driving a vehicle on the motorway which could only
achieve the same retardation as a train. Please let others know when you
do, as it would be an MOT failure - and by a vast margin.


Fortunately motorways are not made of steel rail and car tyres are not
made of steel with a one square inch patch of metal not designed to
stop several tonnes of train.

I really think you have excelled yourselves in drivel today.



--
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 26/04/2014 14:57, Johny B Good wrote:


Wrong tense (_came_ from other stars) but otherwise correct. :-)

Yes. Supernovas, to be precise.

Some is still arriving in the form of cosmic rays, but yes came is correct.

In article , The Natural Philosopher
scribeth thus
On 25/04/14 23:55, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
take away a massive steel disc brake cos regenerative braking absorbs
most of the power,

You don't need massive steel disc brakes for moderate retardation. What
you do need them for is a panic stop from 90 mph. And regenerative braking
ain't going to do that.

Oh yes it is.

you put a short across a leccy motor and it stops dead in its tracks mate.

the disc brakes are there to get to to a final stop, not to absorb the
bulk of the energy.


Never mind motah's its been used for trains for years and years..

Even AC ones now...

--
Tony Sayer

On Friday, April 25, 2014 8:58:43 PM UTC+1, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

If society were serious about changing things, we'd have gokart lanes round
towns, allowing local short range transport on a variety of
buggies/karts/etc. Energy consumption, cost and congestion would drop
considerably. A barrier between them and large vehicles is needed. Buggies
could be powered by electricity, conventional liquid fuels, scrap timber &
slash, household garbage, bagged mains gas, dog, pedal, etc.

Actually we wouldn't because of the shortage of width of our roads.

Lots of town roads can spare a few feet. Lots of town pavements can spare a few feet. Some non-car routes could even be added.


NT

wrote:
On Friday, April 25, 2014 8:58:43 PM UTC+1, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

If society were serious about changing things, we'd have gokart lanes round
towns, allowing local short range transport on a variety of
buggies/karts/etc. Energy consumption, cost and congestion would drop
considerably. A barrier between them and large vehicles is needed. Buggies
could be powered by electricity, conventional liquid fuels, scrap timber &
slash, household garbage, bagged mains gas, dog, pedal, etc.

Actually we wouldn't because of the shortage of width of our roads.

Lots of town roads can spare a few feet. Lots of town pavements can spare
a few feet. Some non-car routes could even be added.


NT

It's what they've done in Amsterdam reducing pedestrians to third class
citizens. Not impressed.

Tim

On Sat, 26 Apr 2014 11:00:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 25/04/14 23:55, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
take away a massive steel disc brake cos regenerative braking absorbs
most of the power,

You don't need massive steel disc brakes for moderate retardation. What
you do need them for is a panic stop from 90 mph. And regenerative braking
ain't going to do that.

Oh yes it is.

you put a short across a leccy motor and it stops dead in its tracks mate.

I can certainly attest to that phenomenon from my own experience with
designing and building a controller board for a Philips solenoid
controlled bi-directional data cassette drive which used seperate cush
drive high quality permanent magnet DC motors (using proper carbon
brushes) on the tape drive hubs. This phenomena becomes ever more
extreme as you inrease the motor size.

I had to use a 27v zenner diode (via steering diodes) to provide an
rpm limited back tension during fast forward/reverse seek operations
to both limit the windage effect (to avoid ingesting a lubricating
film of air between the incoming tape and the spool of tape it was
being wound onto) and terminal speed when the lamp/photocell detected
the leader and 'hit the brakes' by shorting the motors to stop the
tape within the 10 to 15 cm length of remaining leader.

The cush drive spring extension still had to deal with some remaining
kinetic energy but the electro- braking did at least reduce this to a
managable level. My initial tests gave me a C60 end to end fast
wind/rewind spooling time of 10 seconds... and broken/tangled tapes.
The zenner speed limiter mod resulted in a 14 second spooling time and
unharmed tapes.


the disc brakes are there to get to to a final stop, not to absorb the
bulk of the energy.

Quite true. Also, they're needed to provide a static braking force to
allow the vehicle to come to a stop without creep as well as for
parking. In fact, the disks could simply form the outer portion of the
motor helping to minimise the 'unsprung mass' even further.

Whilst 'sharing' the mass of a common motor 4 ways to each wheel is
undesirable[1] from a suspension and ride handling point of view, it
does have the merit of eliminating the mass of not only the common
motor itself but also that of the heavy and bulky mechanical
transmission system. The flexible cables will add some mass of their
own of course but can be considerably lighter than their mechanical
counterpart.

The only other transmission method that occurs to me that might
compete with an all electric transmission is the use of hydraulic hub
motors in each wheel connected to a pump driven by a common motor[2].
A variable delivery swash plate type pump can provide a variomatic
auto transmission system with no need for a seperate clutch. I haven't
seen any comparative data on such a scheme though.

I think the transmission losses in a hydraulic system are on a par
with those in a conventional mechanical system. The costs are likely
to be considerably higher to produce an all hydraulic transmission
(even in mass production) for something as humble as the family car so
even assuming a similar transmission efficiency between the two
systems, it's not going to happen in anything other than specialised
vehicles (plough pulling tractors and Space Shuttle Transporters)
where the high precision of control outweighs the extra cost.

[1] The "unsprung mass" problem could be mitigated by 'active
suspension' techniques where the 'absorbed energy' from a road bump
can be recycled into the KERS battery (or even an individual super-cap
per wheel) to compensate for the energy required to push the road
wheel back down to 'follow the road contour' on the 'rebound' of the
active 'spring'.

It seems a little 'short sighted' to say the least if you're going to
discount a purely electric[3] transmission system on the basis of
'unsprung mass' issues with prototype hub motor drives alone.

[2] In this case, there'd be no need for sophisticated electronic
control of the electric motor since this could simply be started up to
run at its designed speed for whatever voltage is being generated by
the fuel cell stack. The automatic transmission functions simply being
implemented by hydraulic controls. The electric motor in this case
would simply be standing in as a substitute for the more usual diesel
engined prime mover.

[3] The Honda system is basically taking the power transfer to the
road wheels via two power conversion stages. The primary one being the
fuel cell conversion to electric power with the second being the
common electric motor driving a mechanical transmission system to
mechanically drive the road wheels. It seems only common sense to
eliminate this extra stage and distribute the fuel cell's electrical
power more directly to the hub motors via a low loss intelligent power
management and control system with a built in KERS.

The Honda Hydrogen powered car is at the 'proof of concept' stage
right now. There's plenty of time (and scope) to further refine the
system to an all electric transmission and optional active suspension
configuration later on in the development cycle.

The only remaining serious issue being the infrastructure required to
manufacture and distribute the hydrogen fuel. Distribution is mainly a
matter of logistics (the existing system for conventional fuels could
be appropriated with suitable modifications) which leaves the bigger
question of manufacture to be addressed.

It strikes me that, in all probabilty, the best place at this point
in time is to use the existing oil refineries to manufacture the
hydrogen fuel. Purpose made LFTR based nuclear power station hydrogen
production can come later on when the cost of oil makes the refinery
solution too uneconomic to sustain.

The arguments over the energy losses in hydrolysing water into usable
hydrogen fuel are, in part, a little spurious. At the present time,
the production costs for hydrogen made from natural gas is about
double that of petroleum. However, this is more or less cancelled out
by the higher tank to wheel energy efficiency compared to that of an
ICE powered vehicle.

Setting aside the very high capital costs, the energy running costs
remain pretty much equal with the main benefit being that of reduced
pollution products from the vehicle itself. The issue of carbon
emmissions by the hydrogen fuel manufacturing processes is one that
can be dealt with by the producers.

Eventually, hydrogen fuel production options will utlimately shrink
down to hydrogen production co-sited with LFTR nuclear power stations
so the carbon emmission issue will become a matter of history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCX_Clarity gives a good summary and
some more detail.
--
Regards, J B Good

In message , Johny B Good
writes
The only other transmission method that occurs to me that might
compete with an all electric transmission is the use of hydraulic hub
motors in each wheel connected to a pump driven by a common motor[2].
A variable delivery swash plate type pump can provide a variomatic
auto transmission system with no need for a seperate clutch. I haven't
seen any comparative data on such a scheme though.

I think the transmission losses in a hydraulic system are on a par
with those in a conventional mechanical system. The costs are likely
to be considerably higher to produce an all hydraulic transmission
(even in mass production) for something as humble as the family car so
even assuming a similar transmission efficiency between the two
systems, it's not going to happen in anything other than specialised
vehicles (plough pulling tractors and Space Shuttle Transporters)
where the high precision of control outweighs the extra cost.

International Harvester brought out a tractor with just this system,
around 1975. I drove one here on trial. Bl--dy noisy!
--
Tim Lamb

On Saturday, April 26, 2014 10:42:17 PM UTC+1, Tim+ wrote:
wrote:
On Friday, April 25, 2014 8:58:43 PM UTC+1, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

If society were serious about changing things, we'd have gokart lanes round
towns, allowing local short range transport on a variety of
buggies/karts/etc. Energy consumption, cost and congestion would drop
considerably. A barrier between them and large vehicles is needed. Buggies
could be powered by electricity, conventional liquid fuels, scrap timber &
slash, household garbage, bagged mains gas, dog, pedal, etc.
Actually we wouldn't because of the shortage of width of our roads.
Lots of town roads can spare a few feet. Lots of town pavements can spare
a few feet. Some non-car routes could even be added.

It's what they've done in Amsterdam reducing pedestrians to third class
citizens. Not impressed.

Obviously reducing pedestrians to 3rd class citizens is something entirely different. This is getting silly

In article ,
Johny B Good wrote:
Oh yes it is.

you put a short across a leccy motor and it stops dead in its tracks mate.

I can certainly attest to that phenomenon from my own experience with
designing and building a controller board for a Philips solenoid
controlled bi-directional data cassette drive which used seperate cush
drive high quality permanent magnet DC motors (using proper carbon
brushes) on the tape drive hubs. This phenomena becomes ever more
extreme as you inrease the motor size.

On a car it is usual to short the wiper motor when it parks to make sure
they don't overshoot.

However, braking a car savagely from high speed is a very different
matter. The energy produced has to be dissipated somehow. Shorting the
motor and locking the wheels as suggested by NP doesn't seem ideal to me.

--
*Bigamy is having one wife too many - monogamy is the same

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

On Sun, 27 Apr 2014 10:35:49 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Johny B Good wrote:
Oh yes it is.

you put a short across a leccy motor and it stops dead in its tracks mate.

I can certainly attest to that phenomenon from my own experience with
designing and building a controller board for a Philips solenoid
controlled bi-directional data cassette drive which used seperate cush
drive high quality permanent magnet DC motors (using proper carbon
brushes) on the tape drive hubs. This phenomena becomes ever more
extreme as you inrease the motor size.

On a car it is usual to short the wiper motor when it parks to make sure
they don't overshoot.

However, braking a car savagely from high speed is a very different
matter. The energy produced has to be dissipated somehow. Shorting the
motor and locking the wheels as suggested by NP doesn't seem ideal to me.

It isn't. It was just a point being made on the effectiveness of
regenerative braking. A real system doesn't simply short the motor
out, it uses the motor in 'generator mode' to absorb the energy into a
battery or supercap rather than have it simply dissipated as waste
heat in a brake disk.
--
Regards, J B Good