UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #121   Report Post  
IMM
 
Posts: n/a
Default Was: Moss/Lichen on roof, now we are into pollution.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

I ou want to get a handle on some eco bull**** there is a book -
scpetical ecologist - or somesuch.

Big industry and teh greens are both lying hypocrites apparently.


Friends of The Earth have been accused of being a front for large landowners
in an attempt to keep people out of the countryside, keeping their lucrative
acres (by taking in rent).




---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 03/01/2004


  #122   Report Post  
The Natural Philosopher
 
Posts: n/a
Default Was: Moss/Lichen on roof, now we are into pollution.

IMM wrote:


On the vehicle side, matters are more complex. Of course, local CHP power
stations drip charging electric car overnight is very sensible, but we do
not have the infrastructure for this, as yet. Also what do you do in a
city, when you car is parked on the road? How do you charge it?



Hang a cable out of the window, or *gasp* build undergroung parking
areas with electrical sockets?

Or charge them up in supermarket car parks etc etc.

You CAN fully charge a lithium car in about an hour, but you need
specailsed charging facilities to do it safely.




There are far more efficient diesel and gasoline engines around, and are
running.



Sadly these would require huge changes in engine factories, costing huge
amounts of money.

These can be developed fully and integrated into a hybrid setup.
Another method suggested is waste heat from an advanced rotary engine (not
an inefficient Wankel design) which has well over 50% efficiency, driving a
small Stirling engine from its waste heat, which drives a compressor, which
charges an air tank. The compressed air assists drive via an air motor in a
hybrid setup. This is a fine stop gap, and around town the car can run on
non-polluting air, which is generated from what would have been wasted heat.
The whole setup can be small in size as rotary engines are small and a
compressor/air motors is also small. The compressor can also be the starter
motor too.



hugely complicated and expensive.

You could simply have a smaller engine that charges the batteries.




---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004





  #123   Report Post  
The Natural Philosopher
 
Posts: n/a
Default Was: Moss/Lichen on roof, now we are into pollution.

IMM wrote:

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...


I have been reading about the immense progress being made in fuel cell
technology for more than twenty years now. Why are they not yet in daily
use in every household?


Why isn't every new and rennovated houses built to superinsulation and
passive solar standards, virtually eliminating a heating system? Not rocket
science and many examples are all over the world right now, so not airy
fairy ideas at all. It would cost the taxpayer nothing to implement.



Because super insulation is useless without other means to reduce
ventilation losses.

You need things like heat exchanges on ventilation - this gets very
expensive.


It is arguable that the energy used to build all this stuff doesn't

get paid back in a sensible timescale.


Curemnt insulation levels are at around ten times what they were in say
the 1950's, with windows being perhpas 3 times better.

We are reaching teh law of diminishing returns on insulation.



  #124   Report Post  
The Natural Philosopher
 
Posts: n/a
Default Was: Moss/Lichen on roof, now we are into pollution.

IMM wrote:

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...


If someone could only come up with a plant that I simply stuffed full of
junk-mail and which heated my house, generated most of my electricity,
and allowed me to run a few pipes rund the garden to grow vegetables in
winter from....at similar cost to an oil boiler...

I am truly surprised that some such object has not yet been developed.


It's called a wood stove, and some of these are very efficient.



No, its not. you need more than a wood stove to burn wood and paper cleanly.

You need forced draught and VERY high temperaures to break down the
pollutants properly, and some way to remove solid particles and various
noxious things out of the flue gases.

Such things do exist, but they are rare.





---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004





  #125   Report Post  
The Natural Philosopher
 
Posts: n/a
Default Was: Moss/Lichen on roof, now we are into pollution.

IMM wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


I ou want to get a handle on some eco bull**** there is a book -
scpetical ecologist - or somesuch.

Big industry and teh greens are both lying hypocrites apparently.


Friends of The Earth have been accused of being a front for large landowners
in an attempt to keep people out of the countryside, keeping their lucrative
acres (by taking in rent).



I don't think that one stacks up really.

However there is no doubt that planting more trees is a good way of
fixing atmospheric carbon.

Suburban sprawl adds energy to the atmosphere, stops rain getting into the ground water,

and leads to loss of green ares.






---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 03/01/2004







  #126   Report Post  
IMM
 
Posts: n/a
Default Was: Moss/Lichen on roof, now we are into pollution.


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

There are far more efficient diesel and gasoline
engines around, and are running.



Sadly these would require huge changes
in engine factories, costing huge
amounts of money.


These new engines require no more than existing technology and engineering
tools.

These can be developed fully and integrated into a hybrid setup.
Another method suggested is waste heat from an advanced rotary engine

(not
an inefficient Wankel design) which has well over 50% efficiency,

driving a
small Stirling engine from its waste heat, which drives a compressor,

which
charges an air tank. The compressed air assists drive via an air motor

in a
hybrid setup. This is a fine stop gap, and around town the car can run

on
non-polluting air, which is generated from what would have been wasted

heat.
The whole setup can be small in size as rotary engines are small and a
compressor/air motors is also small. The compressor can also be the

starter
motor too.


hugely complicated and expensive.


No more complicated than an existing hybrid. Expense will be cheap when
production is up and running.

You could simply have a smaller engine that charges the batteries.


Been tried. Not feasible as yet.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004


  #127   Report Post  
Jerry Built
 
Posts: n/a
Default victorian/edwardian houses or new houses?

"N. Thornton" wrote:
"Jerry Built" wrote...
IMM wrote: The Neutered Pillockofer wrote:
Modern multi-braced roof trusses are cheap, and adequate, but won't
allow you to add a room in the attic like substantial victorian ones
might.


So? Modern timbers are far superior to Victorian houses.


What? In what way?


Hi. I dont think there were any building regs covering timber sizing
100 or 150 years ago, and some of the woodwork on these old places
I've seen has had people peeing in their boots (figuratively .


The question wasn't actually about opxy "building regs" or timber
sizing.


I saw one Vic house with twisted snaking 3" beams supporting the
upstairs floors, and IIRC they were something like 15 feet long.


Yes, I've seen a number of new houses with twisted snaking roof
trusses, too...


One
or two had rotted through as well. The chap who owned it said that
when he pulled the plaster off, he was amazed the beams had supported
the floor without it collapsing.

6" floor joists are common in the better Vic houses, which is still
smaller than you'll find on new builds, but not a problem. Its just a
bit less soundproof.


A bit less? Would that be measurable, I wonder, or merely theoretical?


The biggest diffrence is probably in the roof. There are Vic houses
around that wouldnt have the least chance of meeting todays load
requirements, but if they've stayed up, they're still with us.


So "building regulations" outlaw a "traditional" roof constructed of
4x2s? I didn't know that.

J.B.






  #128   Report Post  
IMM
 
Posts: n/a
Default Was: Moss/Lichen on roof, now we are into pollution.


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:


Big industry and teh greens are both lying hypocrites apparently.


Friends of The Earth have been accused of
being a front for large landowners
in an attempt to keep people out of the
countryside, keeping their lucrative
acres (by taking in rent).


I don't think that one stacks up really.


Kevin Cahill in his book Who Owns Britain, made a full frontal attack on
Jonathan Porrit of Friends of The Earth.

However there is no doubt that planting more trees is a good way of
fixing atmospheric carbon.


Or making houses with timber frames, or SIP panels, using planned forests.

Suburban sprawl adds energy to the atmosphere,
stops rain getting into the ground water,


Not if it is resigned right. Gardens account for about half of a suburban
area anyhow. Gutters can empty into soakaways, as they do in some areas.
Also in newer developments, the gutters empty into a separate drain which
the water compy use to re-cycle the water. Nothing is lost.

and leads to loss of green ares.


Green area can be incorporated within the housing, especially trees. Green
areas for the sake of it, with no public access, are pretty useless and
serve no purpose. Land should be used to the benefit of the people.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004


  #129   Report Post  
IMM
 
Posts: n/a
Default Was: Moss/Lichen on roof, now we are into pollution.


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...


I have been reading about the immense progress being made in fuel cell
technology for more than twenty years now. Why are they not yet in

daily
use in every household?


Why isn't every new and rennovated houses built to superinsulation and
passive solar standards, virtually eliminating a heating system? Not

rocket
science and many examples are all over the world right now, so not airy
fairy ideas at all. It would cost the taxpayer nothing to implement.


Because super insulation is useless without other means to reduce
ventilation losses.


It is not useless. As you know, superinsulated and air-tight homes have
heat recovery and vent in them, rendering your criticism rather silly.

You need things like heat exchanges on ventilation - this gets very
expensive.


As there will be no full heating system this serves as the heating system
too, to top up the heating when it is rarely required. Not expensive at
all, when looking at the total cost of a house.

It is arguable that the energy used to build all this stuff doesn't
get paid back in a sensible timescale.


It is arguable, but an argument lost. And as the topic is emissions etc,
from a global view, this is a way of drastically reducing emissions,
reducing fossil fuel usage and eliminating fuel poverty, besides the
comfortable environment it creates.

Curemnt insulation levels are at around
ten times what they were in say
the 1950's, with windows being perhpas
3 times better.


Insulation was only mandatory in the UK from 1974. The insulation levels
currently are dire, but are being ramped to something acceptable soon. We
need a quantum leap, not staged pussy footing. Superinsulation and passive
solar can be implemented right now

We are reaching teh law of diminishing returns on insulation.


We are reducing the emissions drastically, eliminating fuel poverty, and
reducing millions of damp and cold related diseases, which is what counts.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004


  #130   Report Post  
Dave Plowman
 
Posts: n/a
Default Was: Moss/Lichen on roof, now we are into pollution.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Hang a cable out of the window, or *gasp* build undergroung parking
areas with electrical sockets?


If you're going to build underground car parks for all city cars that
haven't their own off road parking, wouldn't it make much more sense to
spend the money on extending the tube network and making it cheap/free?
An electric car is only suitable for city use and will do nothing for
congestion.

Or charge them up in supermarket car parks etc etc.


I only go to the supermarket on a day when I can be in and out in an hour.

You CAN fully charge a lithium car in about an hour, but you need
specailsed charging facilities to do it safely.


Apart from the fortune needed to buy and replace such a battery for car
use.

--
*Why is it that doctors call what they do "practice"?

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn


  #131   Report Post  
Franz Heymann
 
Posts: n/a
Default Was: Moss/Lichen on roof, now we are into pollution.


"IMM" wrote in message
...
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:


Because there have been minor improvements in a flawed highly

inefficient
piston engine design over the past 30 years, you appear to think this
exonerates the internal combustion engine, or it is efficient or clean

or
something. It is NOT.

The engine it at the end of its lifespan, it should have gone 50 years

ago.

snip

As I mentioned in another post, according to MIT the fuel cell is not

viable
yet for vehicles, which are the world's worst polluters.

Far more efficient Rotary and Stirling diesel and petrol units appear

the
best options to fill the gap. The Stirling is external combustion,

which is
much a clean on the burn. Even the Rev Tec Aussie engine, a piston

engine,
improves thermal efficiency from 25% to over 50%.



What you have failed to realise, is that even these are only stopgaps

too.

It is obvious that I know that, as I have already said that.

At the very best, a fuel BURNING engine delivers only 60%

efficiency - maybe a little more. The rest is waste heat.

If you had goine to a snotty uni, where
the theory is taught, you would
understand that any heat engine - and
all the above are heat engines -
has its efficiency dictated by the ratio
of the temperature of burn to
the echaust temperature.


Not quite right. The overall mechanical efficiency of the unit has to be

up
to it. Also in road engine, the power to weight ratio is one of the most
important factors.

The big picture is about energy conservation, especially in terms of
waste heat, and the irreversible (in the short to medium term) problem
if taking fossilised carbon out of the ground and pumping it into the ai

r.

To solve that you need to

- use less.
- burn plants you grew last year.
- generate power by means that don't generate waste heat OR
- use waste heat to replace the use of fuel elsewhere (CHP)


..and use less fuel cleanly.

Use of the engines described does not solve any of these apart from, in
a minor way, the first.


I did say in the short to medium term the diesel and gasoline engines will
have to do, but there are far more efficient versions around than the
abomination we all currently use.

Fuel cells can solve many of the above, but in the end. electricity is
bets because it generates very little waste heat when used to generate
mechanial motion.


It is the loses at generation and transmission losses. This can be

reduced
by having smaller local power stations, the UK had, using natural, using

CHP
to heat the local district.


The indirect transmision losses involved in shovelling large numbers of
loads of small amounts of fuel to thousands of small power stations all over
the country are vastly greater than the transmission losses in power cables.

Transmission losses then are low and overall
energy efficient is very high. Sweden do this.


I bet they have not looked carefully enough at the costs and energy
efficiencies of such a policy, unless they are in a position in which the
fuel is naturally available dispersed all over the country.

The issues then become how to generate electricity without using fossil
fuel and/or heat engines. Feul cells are not heat engines, but usually
use fossil fuel. Nuclear power doesn't use fossil fuel, but does use a
heat engine. windmills do neither, but are ugly, of variable power, and
woefully inefficient in terms of space used.


"woefully inefficient in terms of space used"? You see cows grazing under
them. They can be in the middle of fields and only occupy a small

footprint.
There are windmill farms being built off-shore all over the UK right now,
Out of sight.


Sadly, incapable of producing anything more than a negligible amout of
power.

Water and wave power does
neither, but is localised as to its applicability. solar cells are even
ore woefully inneficient,


Wet solar panels generally inefficient per squ foot,


You should not use such a meaningless term in a discussion which is more or
less scientifically based. Efficiency is defined as power out/power in.
There is no room for a subsidiary phrase "per square foot".

but have the whole of a
south facing roof being a solar panel and the by shear size you have an
efficient collector, that will virtually provide all of the houses needs

if
you can store the heat in a large thermal store

Put PV cells on every south facing roof and most of the power generation
station will not be needed. The solutions are there. It needs political
will to force it through.


Unfortunately the economics are still wrong. Very wrong. Otherwise they
would have been in use by more than the afficionados.

but there mat be better technology coming..
burning domestc rubbish and biomass is
good as it doesn't use (much)
fossil fuel - i.,e. it's more or less carbon neutral,
but it does tend to need treatement to reduce
pollution of toxic flue gasses.

There is no easy answer. But simply slightly better heat engines
burining fossil fuils are almost the worst of all possible answers.


On the domestic and commercial build front, insulation levels to
superinsulation, passive solar design of homes, as Germany as doing with
Passiv Solar regs, south facing roofs having integrated wet solar/PV

cells,
boiler with integrated CPH elec/gas Stirling boilers and soon to be
introduced. The Stirling CPH boilers cut the peaks of electricity usage.
All this is right now, and can and should be implemented. Doing so will
drastically cut fuel usage and emissions and prevent fuel poverty. And mo

re
efficiency is on the way...

What looks promising and appear likely to be introduced is the Zeolithe

heat
pump, which runs on natural gas for the provision of domestic heating and
hot water. Currently these units are floor mounted and resemble a typical
boiler in appearance. Zeolithe heating appliance's use less energy and

are
more environment-friendly than electric heat pumps and gas boilers. It
provides considerably higher output levels than the current conventional

and
condensing boilers. Carbon-dioxide emissions are reduced by approximately
20 to 30%.

On the vehicle side, matters are more complex. Of course, local CHP power
stations drip charging electric car overnight is very sensible, but we do
not have the infrastructure for this, as yet. Also what do you do in a
city, when you car is parked on the road? How do you charge it?


You should not have a car if having one means the appropriation of public
highway space for your exclusive use.
Or do folk who misuse roads in this way pay rent to the local authority?

There are far more efficient diesel and gasoline engines around, and are
running. These can be developed fully and integrated into a hybrid setup.
Another method suggested is waste heat from an advanced rotary engine (not
an inefficient Wankel design) which has well over 50% efficiency, driving

a
small Stirling engine from its waste heat, which drives a compressor,

which
charges an air tank.


The compressed air assists drive via an air motor in a
hybrid setup. This is a fine stop gap, and around town the car can run on
non-polluting air, which is generated from what would have been wasted

heat.
The whole setup can be small in size as rotary engines are small and a
compressor/air motors is also small. The compressor can also be the

starter
motor too.


And how many folk are gong to be trained to be proficient in servicing such
a vastly complicated object?

Franz


  #132   Report Post  
Franz Heymann
 
Posts: n/a
Default Was: Moss/Lichen on roof, now we are into pollution.


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Franz Heymann wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Franz Heymann wrote:


I have read a report one experimental fuel cell unit installed in

Holland,


where it was mentioned that "At the point of shutdown, the unit was

also
sustaining a power generating efficiency of more than 46 percent,

well
above
a conventional combustion-based power plant that typically generates
electricity at efficiencies of 33 to 35 percent".


That is typical of an old station running coal or gas, built to 60's
standards. Noit a modern set.


The report was quite recent, like a couple of years old.


*shrug* maybe people aren't too bothered about efficiency and still
build cheap gas powered sets.


*more shrug* Maybe 60% is reached in the occasional "flagship" power
station. I think it is exceptional.

[snip]

Franz


  #133   Report Post  
The Natural Philosopher
 
Posts: n/a
Default Was: Moss/Lichen on roof, now we are into pollution.

Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Hang a cable out of the window, or *gasp* build undergroung parking
areas with electrical sockets?


If you're going to build underground car parks for all city cars that
haven't their own off road parking, wouldn't it make much more sense to
spend the money on extending the tube network and making it cheap/free?
An electric car is only suitable for city use and will do nothing for
congestion.


That is simply not so.

With 300 mile range and potentially one hour fast charge from flat, it
would be ideal for rural use and commuting.

What it won't do is 16 hour 1000 mile journeys...



Or charge them up in supermarket car parks etc etc.


I only go to the supermarket on a day when I can be in and out in an hour.


You CAN fully charge a lithium car in about an hour, but you need
specailsed charging facilities to do it safely.


Apart from the fortune needed to buy and replace such a battery for car
use.



Yes. That is the only issue left IMHO. But I would suspect you would not
replace all teh battery - simply those cells that were below standard.

That would essentially be the major part of every 'service'





  #134   Report Post  
IMM
 
Posts: n/a
Default Was: Moss/Lichen on roof, now we are into pollution.


"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

It is the loses at generation and transmission
losses. This can be reduced by having smaller
local power stations, the UK had them, using
natural gas, using CHP to heat the local district.


The indirect transmision losses involved in
shovelling large numbers of loads of small
amounts of fuel to thousands of small power
stations all over the country are vastly greater
than the transmission losses in power cables.


Not if the fuel is in natural gas pipelines.

Transmission losses then are low and overall
energy efficient is very high. Sweden do this.


I bet they have not looked carefully
enough at the costs and energy
efficiencies of such a policy, unless
they are in a position in which the
fuel is naturally available dispersed
all over the country.


The last time I looked, there were highly viable.

The issues then become how to generate electricity without using

fossil
fuel and/or heat engines. Feul cells are not heat engines, but

usually
use fossil fuel. Nuclear power doesn't use fossil fuel, but does use a
heat engine. windmills do neither, but are ugly, of variable power,

and
woefully inefficient in terms of space used.


"woefully inefficient in terms of space used"?
You see cows grazing under them. They can
be in the middle of fields and only occupy a small
footprint. There are windmill farms being built off-shore
all over the UK right now, Out of sight.


Sadly, incapable of producing anything more
than a negligible amout of power.


The UK is aiming for 25% of its power generation by wind. CHP Stirling
boilers are also envisaged to fill gaps too.

Water and wave power does
neither, but is localised as to its applicability. solar cells are

even
ore woefully inneficient,


Wet solar panels generally inefficient per squ foot,


You should not use such a meaningless
term in a discussion which is more or
less scientifically based.


??? You can get high efficient wet solar panels, but they are "very"
expensive. Flat plate collectors are a lot less efficient.

Efficiency is defined as power out/power in.
There is no room for a subsidiary phrase
"per square foot".


You should understand how flat plate collectors work.

but have the whole of a
south facing roof being a solar
panel and the by shear size you have an
efficient collector, that will virtually provide
all of the houses needs if you can store
the heat in a large thermal store

Put PV cells on every south facing roof
and most of the power generation
station will not be needed. The solutions are
there. It needs political will to force it through.


Unfortunately the economics are still wrong. Very wrong. Otherwise they
would have been in use by more than the afficionados.


The economics "now" are wrong. Political will, will force it through and
mass production will reduce components accordingly to a point it is
feasible. It is the kick-start that is required.

There are far more efficient diesel and gasoline
engines around, and are running. These can
be developed fully and integrated into a hybrid setup.
Another method suggested is waste heat from
an advanced rotary engine (not an inefficient
Wankel design) which has well over 50% efficiency,
driving a small Stirling engine from its waste heat,
which drives a compressor, which charges an air tank.


The compressed air assists drive via an air motor in a
hybrid setup. This is a fine stop gap, and around
town the car can run on non-polluting air, which
is generated from what would have been wasted
heat. The whole setup can be small in size as
rotary engines are small and a compressor/air
motors is also small. The compressor can also
be the starter motor too.


And how many folk are gong to be trained
to be proficient in servicing such
a vastly complicated object?


Complicated? None of that is complicated at all. A lot less complicated
than the current petrol IC engine/electric motor hybrids.



---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004


  #135   Report Post  
IMM
 
Posts: n/a
Default Was: Moss/Lichen on roof, now we are into pollution.


"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Franz Heymann wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Franz Heymann wrote:


I have read a report one experimental fuel cell unit installed in

Holland,


where it was mentioned that "At the point of shutdown, the unit

was
also
sustaining a power generating efficiency of more than 46 percent,

well
above
a conventional combustion-based power plant that typically

generates
electricity at efficiencies of 33 to 35 percent".


That is typical of an old station running coal or gas, built to 60's
standards. Noit a modern set.


The report was quite recent, like a couple of years old.


*shrug* maybe people aren't too bothered about efficiency and still
build cheap gas powered sets.


*more shrug* Maybe 60% is reached in the occasional "flagship" power
station. I think it is exceptional.


The point is that it is achievable.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004




  #136   Report Post  
The Natural Philosopher
 
Posts: n/a
Default Was: Moss/Lichen on roof, now we are into pollution.

Franz Heymann wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message


*shrug* maybe people aren't too bothered about efficiency and still
build cheap gas powered sets.


*more shrug* Maybe 60% is reached in the occasional "flagship" power
station. I think it is exceptional.



Yes, but in the conxtext of hugely expensive and very new technology
fuel cells, one should compare like with like.

ould it coset less to build a 60% efficint CCP or a 40% efficient fuel
cell station?

Remember that the fuel cell produces DC, which needs to be chopped and
flitered to feed the grid. Or a rotary conertor. All this adds to teh
cost as well.


I hope we do see cheap efficient fuel cells, but they have been around
snce the 60's AFAICR, and never caught on. Lithium cells have obnly
really been devleoped in teh tast ten years or so, and have swept the
marjket where their cots/weiht/energy profiles havce made them 'the best
in class'


[snip]

Franz





  #137   Report Post  
Bob Hobden
 
Posts: n/a
Default Was: Moss/Lichen on roof, now we are into pollution.


"Franz wrote in message after me...
[snip]

Much more efficient to burn the hydrogen in a reciprocating (or

rotary)
engine than to convert it through a fuel cell to run an electric

motor,
though electrically propelled vehicles do have the potential to

convert
the slowing down process back into usable power.


Totally wrong, and ever heard of regenerative braking,


Evidently he had, as evinced in the paragraph you described as "totally
wrong".


The rotary engines we have developed have all proved less efficient in
practice than the old reciprocating engine (check fuel consumption) which
is why only Mazda persist with them and then in only one vehicle in their
range. Controlling pollution from them has been a major problem too.
Fuel Cells (chemical batteries) are much more efficient at converting
chemical energy to electricity than burning it in any way, be it steam
powered turbines or reciprocating engines. It's why it is expected that
Power Generation will follow the Fuel Cell route idc.

As far as regenerative braking is concerned he mentioned Electrically
Propelled Vehicles, I've not seen a normal coach powered in such a way.
Normal diesel engined coaches have had brake generators for years.

--
Regards
Bob

Use a useful Screen Saver...
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/
and find intelligent life amongst the stars
359 data units completed.



  #138   Report Post  
Dave Plowman
 
Posts: n/a
Default Was: Moss/Lichen on roof, now we are into pollution.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
That is simply not so.


With 300 mile range and potentially one hour fast charge from flat, it
would be ideal for rural use and commuting.


If you add 'potential' to that I might believe you. Non of the electric or
hybrid vehicles I've read about being tested in real world conditions get
near their claims of range, etc. And a one hour charge rules out lead acid
batteries - so the cost of alternatives is presently prohibitive.

What it won't do is 16 hour 1000 mile journeys...


Well, nor will any petrol car I know about without re-fuelling. And anyone
doing such a drive should have a couple of breaks anyway.

--
*Windows will never cease *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn
  #139   Report Post  
Nick Maclaren
 
Posts: n/a
Default Was: Moss/Lichen on roof, now we are into pollution.

In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Dave Plowman wrote:

If you're going to build underground car parks for all city cars that
haven't their own off road parking, wouldn't it make much more sense to
spend the money on extending the tube network and making it cheap/free?
An electric car is only suitable for city use and will do nothing for
congestion.


That is simply not so.

With 300 mile range and potentially one hour fast charge from flat, it
would be ideal for rural use and commuting.


Yes,indeed, it would. It is, I agree, a more realistic target than
breeding flying pigs.

2) The petrol used in 300 miles by a typical modern car contains
about 1 GJoule. If we assume a factor of two higher efficiency, then
charging in an hour needs 140 KW. A standard domestic power circuit
is rated at 7 KW. You have a factor of 20 to make up.

Dammit, a CYCLIST will expend some 20 MJoules in 300 miles. Recharging
that in an hour needs 6 KW! There is NO WAY that you will design a car
to be as efficient as a cyclist, despite the motor lobby propaganda.

2) Despite claims, such devices would NOT help with congestion to
a detectable degree.

You CAN fully charge a lithium car in about an hour, but you need
specailsed charging facilities to do it safely.


You need specialised facilities to charge the damn things at all, at
any rate. The necessity for fancy protection mechanisms is one of the
reasons that they are expensive.



Please could you take this stuff to a newsgroup (a) where people are
knowledgable about this sort of thing and (b) where it is on group?


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
  #140   Report Post  
IMM
 
Posts: n/a
Default Was: Moss/Lichen on roof, now we are into pollution.


"Bob Hobden" wrote in message
...

The rotary engines we have developed have
all proved less efficient in practice than the
old reciprocating engine (check fuel consumption)
which is why only Mazda persist with them and
then in only one vehicle in their range. Controlling
pollution from them has been a major problem too.


Mazda make a number of cars with rotary engines, but not sold here. The
Wankle is best suited to high revving applications, hence the sports car.
The RX8 is an improved rotary and of only 1300cc giving 225 HP. See if a
1300cc piston engine can deliver that. Also these engines are physically
small with a very high power to weight ratio.

They are best suited to high revving applications. That is why they are
used in light aircraft. The Norton motorbike rotary (which improved the
design too) was sold of to two concerns. One makes it for light aircraft
and the other for target drone aircraft, requiring a small heat and sound
signature, which end up at the bottom of the sea.

The Russians make two rotary engines: one for a plane and the other is used
(well two of them) in a helicopter, which is an ideal application for this
unit.

The "Wankle" design of rotary is flawed to what is acheivable, (Wankle never
invented the rotary) and far newer and improved designs are in development.
Again the Russians just reversed an idea that is the reverse of the wankel.
Instead of an elliptical chamber and triangular rotor, it is the reverse.
The seals are in the engine block, and can be readily and super easily
changed if necessary. The mixed gas input is via the rotor, which is the
equivalent of injecting the mixture via the piston in a piston engine.

The Canadians have the Qusiturboine, a sort of rotary and turbine together
which has received good press. Here are some web sites on concept engines
and some that are in development
http://conceptengine.tripod.com/

http://www.deadbeatdad.org/eliptoid/

All it needs is a big maker to adopt one of the concepts and run with it.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004





  #141   Report Post  
Dave Plowman
 
Posts: n/a
Default Was: Moss/Lichen on roof, now we are into pollution.

In article ,
IMM wrote:
Mazda make a number of cars with rotary engines, but not sold here.


They sell rotary engined cars here.

The Wankle is best suited to high revving applications, hence the
sports car. The RX8 is an improved rotary and of only 1300cc giving 225
HP. See if a 1300cc piston engine can deliver that.


Since its specific fuel consumption is terrible for the power output, who
cares what the nominal capacity is? Apart from the likes of you, of
course. You could easily achieve 173 bhp/litre from a piston engine by
turbo or supercharging.

Also these engines are physically
small with a very high power to weight ratio.


That, at least, is true.

--
* What do they call a coffee break at the Lipton Tea Company? *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn
  #142   Report Post  
N. Thornton
 
Posts: n/a
Default victorian/edwardian houses or new houses?

"Jerry Built" ] wrote in message . ..
"N. Thornton" wrote: IMM wrote: The Neutered Pillockofer wrote:


Modern multi-braced roof trusses are cheap, and adequate, but won't
allow you to add a room in the attic like substantial victorian ones
might.


So? Modern timbers are far superior to Victorian houses.


What? In what way?


Hi. I dont think there were any building regs covering timber sizing
100 or 150 years ago, and some of the woodwork on these old places
I've seen has had people peeing in their boots (figuratively .


The question wasn't actually about opxy "building regs" or timber
sizing.


Which question are you referring to? I was just responding to a point
about timbers, which is relevant to the thread as its one of the
differences between Victorian and modern buildings.


I saw one Vic house with twisted snaking 3" beams supporting the
upstairs floors, and IIRC they were something like 15 feet long.


Yes, I've seen a number of new houses with twisted snaking roof
trusses, too...


Yes, thats no biggie in itself, but when your floor's held up with 3"
wood thats bent and rotten, that is.


One
or two had rotted through as well. The chap who owned it said that
when he pulled the plaster off, he was amazed the beams had supported
the floor without it collapsing.

6" floor joists are common in the better Vic houses, which is still
smaller than you'll find on new builds, but not a problem. Its just a
bit less soundproof.


A bit less? Would that be measurable, I wonder, or merely theoretical?


You can calculate it. IIRC (and I might not) I think 6x2s have around
twice the deflection as 8x2 for a given load, thus they have half the
stiffness in the face of a given sound pressure.

Floorboards with gaps between them also allow more sound through than
modern tongue and groove chip, which has hardly any gaps. The end
result is a significant difference.


The biggest diffrence is probably in the roof. There are Vic houses
around that wouldnt have the least chance of meeting todays load
requirements, but if they've stayed up, they're still with us.


So "building regulations" outlaw a "traditional" roof constructed of
4x2s? I didn't know that.


Not 4x2 as far as I know, but I'm fairly sure they outlaw the ones
built with 3x 1.5". And I've seen 4x1" in one place.


Regards, NT
  #143   Report Post  
Franz Heymann
 
Posts: n/a
Default Was: Moss/Lichen on roof, now we are into pollution.


"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

It is the loses at generation and transmission
losses. This can be reduced by having smaller
local power stations, the UK had them, using
natural gas, using CHP to heat the local district.


The indirect transmision losses involved in
shovelling large numbers of loads of small
amounts of fuel to thousands of small power
stations all over the country are vastly greater
than the transmission losses in power cables.


Not if the fuel is in natural gas pipelines.


I thought that the natural gas accessible to the UK was not all that much
any more.

Transmission losses then are low and overall
energy efficient is very high. Sweden do this.


I bet they have not looked carefully
enough at the costs and energy
efficiencies of such a policy, unless
they are in a position in which the
fuel is naturally available dispersed
all over the country.


The last time I looked, there were highly viable.

The issues then become how to generate electricity without using

fossil
fuel and/or heat engines. Feul cells are not heat engines, but

usually
use fossil fuel. Nuclear power doesn't use fossil fuel, but does use

a
heat engine. windmills do neither, but are ugly, of variable power,

and
woefully inefficient in terms of space used.

"woefully inefficient in terms of space used"?
You see cows grazing under them. They can
be in the middle of fields and only occupy a small
footprint. There are windmill farms being built off-shore
all over the UK right now, Out of sight.


Sadly, incapable of producing anything more
than a negligible amout of power.


The UK is aiming for 25% of its power generation by wind. CHP Stirling
boilers are also envisaged to fill gaps too.


It would surprise me if they ever got that much wind power installed.

Water and wave power does
neither, but is localised as to its applicability. solar cells are

even
ore woefully inneficient,

Wet solar panels generally inefficient per squ foot,


You should not use such a meaningless
term in a discussion which is more or
less scientifically based.


??? You can get high efficient wet solar panels, but they are "very"
expensive. Flat plate collectors are a lot less efficient.

Efficiency is defined as power out/power in.
There is no room for a subsidiary phrase
"per square foot".


You should understand how flat plate collectors work.


I do indeed understand how they work. The term "efficiency per square foot"
is nonsense.
Do you mean to tell me that if a panel has an efficiency of 1% per square
foot, the installation of, say, 200 sq. ft of panel would have an efficiency
of 200%?

but have the whole of a
south facing roof being a solar
panel and the by shear size you have an
efficient collector, that will virtually provide
all of the houses needs if you can store
the heat in a large thermal store

Put PV cells on every south facing roof
and most of the power generation
station will not be needed. The solutions are
there. It needs political will to force it through.


Unfortunately the economics are still wrong. Very wrong. Otherwise

they
would have been in use by more than the afficionados.


The economics "now" are wrong. Political will, will force it through and
mass production will reduce components accordingly to a point it is
feasible. It is the kick-start that is required.


That has been the situation for a couple of decades. It is not politics,
but physics and engineering which may, or may not, get the economics right.

There are far more efficient diesel and gasoline
engines around, and are running. These can
be developed fully and integrated into a hybrid setup.
Another method suggested is waste heat from
an advanced rotary engine (not an inefficient
Wankel design) which has well over 50% efficiency,
driving a small Stirling engine from its waste heat,
which drives a compressor, which charges an air tank.


The compressed air assists drive via an air motor in a
hybrid setup. This is a fine stop gap, and around
town the car can run on non-polluting air, which
is generated from what would have been wasted
heat. The whole setup can be small in size as
rotary engines are small and a compressor/air
motors is also small. The compressor can also
be the starter motor too.


And how many folk are gong to be trained
to be proficient in servicing such
a vastly complicated object?


Complicated? None of that is complicated at all. A lot less complicated
than the current petrol IC engine/electric motor hybrids.


Actually I have my doubts about them too.

Franz


  #144   Report Post  
IMM
 
Posts: n/a
Default Was: Moss/Lichen on roof, now we are into pollution.


"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

It is the loses at generation and transmission
losses. This can be reduced by having smaller
local power stations, the UK had them, using
natural gas, using CHP to heat the local district.

The indirect transmision losses involved in
shovelling large numbers of loads of small
amounts of fuel to thousands of small power
stations all over the country are vastly greater
than the transmission losses in power cables.


Not if the fuel is in natural gas pipelines.


I thought that the natural gas accessible to the UK was not all that much
any more.


The North sea is still full of it and we also import the stuff from Russia.

Transmission losses then are low and overall
energy efficient is very high. Sweden do this.

I bet they have not looked carefully
enough at the costs and energy
efficiencies of such a policy, unless
they are in a position in which the
fuel is naturally available dispersed
all over the country.


The last time I looked, there were highly viable.

The issues then become how to generate electricity without using

fossil
fuel and/or heat engines. Feul cells are not heat engines, but

usually
use fossil fuel. Nuclear power doesn't use fossil fuel, but does

use
a
heat engine. windmills do neither, but are ugly, of variable

power,
and
woefully inefficient in terms of space used.

"woefully inefficient in terms of space used"?
You see cows grazing under them. They can
be in the middle of fields and only occupy a small
footprint. There are windmill farms being built off-shore
all over the UK right now, Out of sight.

Sadly, incapable of producing anything more
than a negligible amout of power.


The UK is aiming for 25% of its power generation by wind. CHP Stirling
boilers are also envisaged to fill gaps too.


It would surprise me if they ever got that much wind power installed.


There is a mass installation programme right now, with much off it just
off-shore, out of sight and in direct line of wind.

Britain is the windiest country in Europe.

Water and wave power does
neither, but is localised as to its applicability. solar cells are

even
ore woefully inneficient,

Wet solar panels generally inefficient per squ foot,

You should not use such a meaningless
term in a discussion which is more or
less scientifically based.


??? You can get high efficient wet solar panels, but they are "very"
expensive. Flat plate collectors are a lot less efficient.

Efficiency is defined as power out/power in.
There is no room for a subsidiary phrase
"per square foot".


You should understand how flat plate collectors work.


I do indeed understand how they work. The term
"efficiency per square foot" is nonsense.
Do you mean to tell me that if a panel has
an efficiency of 1% per square
foot, the installation of, say, 200 sq. ft of
panel would have an efficiency of 200%?


No. Just that other panels, such as Thermomax, are far higher per squ foot
area than a normal cheap flat plate.

but have the whole of a
south facing roof being a solar
panel and the by shear size you have an
efficient collector, that will virtually provide
all of the houses needs if you can store
the heat in a large thermal store

Put PV cells on every south facing roof
and most of the power generation
station will not be needed. The solutions are
there. It needs political will to force it through.

Unfortunately the economics are still wrong. Very wrong. Otherwise

they
would have been in use by more than the afficionados.


The economics "now" are wrong. Political will, will force it through and
mass production will reduce components accordingly to a point it is
feasible. It is the kick-start that is required.


That has been the situation for a couple
of decades. It is not politics,
but physics and engineering which may,
or may not, get the economics right.


The technology and engineering is there, and it is improving by the month.
That is not the problem at all. It is educating the people about the new
technology and the will to push it through.

There are far more efficient diesel and gasoline
engines around, and are running. These can
be developed fully and integrated into a hybrid setup.
Another method suggested is waste heat from
an advanced rotary engine (not an inefficient
Wankel design) which has well over 50% efficiency,
driving a small Stirling engine from its waste heat,
which drives a compressor, which charges an air tank.

The compressed air assists drive via an air motor in a
hybrid setup. This is a fine stop gap, and around
town the car can run on non-polluting air, which
is generated from what would have been wasted
heat. The whole setup can be small in size as
rotary engines are small and a compressor/air
motors is also small. The compressor can also
be the starter motor too.

And how many folk are gong to be trained
to be proficient in servicing such
a vastly complicated object?


Complicated? None of that is complicated at all. A lot less

complicated
than the current petrol IC engine/electric motor hybrids.


Actually I have my doubts about them too.






---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004


  #145   Report Post  
The Natural Philosopher
 
Posts: n/a
Default Was: Moss/Lichen on roof, now we are into pollution.

Nick Maclaren wrote:

In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Dave Plowman wrote:


If you're going to build underground car parks for all city cars that
haven't their own off road parking, wouldn't it make much more sense to
spend the money on extending the tube network and making it cheap/free?
An electric car is only suitable for city use and will do nothing for
congestion.

That is simply not so.

With 300 mile range and potentially one hour fast charge from flat, it
would be ideal for rural use and commuting.


Yes,indeed, it would. It is, I agree, a more realistic target than
breeding flying pigs.

2) The petrol used in 300 miles by a typical modern car contains
about 1 GJoule. If we assume a factor of two higher efficiency, then
charging in an hour needs 140 KW. A standard domestic power circuit
is rated at 7 KW. You have a factor of 20 to make up.



I never said you would use the domestic circuit to fast charge. The
scenario was a 'fats charge' station like a petrol station where you
could plug in, have a pee, have a coffee, and come back with a more or
less charged car in under an hour. Typically you would NOT run the thing
totally flat - more like do 200 miles and then wait 40 minutes to charge it.

I am not going to repeat the figures, but I and someone else came up
independently with 9/10 hours at 20A to do the charge. That would mean
essentially 200A or 50Kw to do the one hour charge. I am not sure where
we differ between 50Kw and 140kW. My figures derived from taking the
shaft bhp used on a normal run, and electrifying those: The figures were
borne out by an actual test car that is running.

Ah. You have assumed a factor of two efficincy. I think that you should
be looking at 3 or more for a start. Petrol engines are not markedly
effuicient at part throttle. Transmission and ancillary sttuff
(alternator and other takeoffs - colling fans etc - sap more). They are
0% efficient sitting at traffic lights whereas electric motors can be
stopped altogether.



Dammit, a CYCLIST will expend some 20 MJ in 300 miles. Recharging
that in an hour needs 6 KW! There is NO WAY that you will design a car
to be as efficient as a cyclist, despite the motor lobby propaganda.



Well I dunno about cyclists. My figures were for about 50kWh (180MJ) for
the 300 miles. And those figures are borne out by other test sites I
found - no I haven't got them to hand because it arose in another
discussion elsewhere. Might be able to dig them up if you are
interested. ireckon a cyclist ambling along at 15mph might need about a
horsepower.. 750W - and would take 20 hours. That's 15KWh or 55MJ? yeah.
within the same range as you. For a back-of-the-envelope calculation.

If we take say 60mph as the average speed, its a 5 hour trip averaged at
10Kw, or about 15bhp. That seems eminently reasonsable for something
like a Fiat Punto - 50bhp - run at on average 1/3rd throttle. I am
assuming better than 90% conversion efficviency, because that is what a
decent electric motor, cells and controller can do. These are not fairy
land figures.



2) Despite claims, such devices would NOT help with congestion to
a detectable degree.



No one said they would. what we are aiming for is almost zero pollution
at teh point-of-transport, and utilkisation of an existing electricity
infrastructure, especailly use of off peak electricity, which allows for
better efficiency of generation anyway.

Congestion can only be reduced by either dramatically raising speed
limits, or taking cars actually off the road.




You CAN fully charge a lithium car in about an hour, but you need
specailsed charging facilities to do it safely.


You need specialised facilities to charge the damn things at all, at
any rate. The necessity for fancy protection mechanisms is one of the
reasons that they are expensive.



Nothing too fancy is needed. A simple voltage and temperature monitor is
all that is required.

Currently the ones being developed for model use are about 30% of cell
cost - a few dollars only. How this would scale with larger cells is
unknown. Its the last area to investigate.





Please could you take this stuff to a newsgroup (a) where people are
knowledgable about this sort of thing and (b) where it is on group?



Well you seem to think YOU are, and so does IMM. AND I think its is
interesting enough to stay here until it dies of boredom.

Its no more YOUR group than it is mine. Its marginally nearer on topic
than 'britney spears nude'




Regards,
Nick Maclaren.





  #146   Report Post  
Nick Smith
 
Posts: n/a
Default Was: Moss/Lichen on roof, now we are into pollution.


Dammit, a CYCLIST will expend some 20 MJ in 300 miles. Recharging
that in an hour needs 6 KW! There is NO WAY that you will design a car
to be as efficient as a cyclist, despite the motor lobby propaganda.



Well I dunno about cyclists. My figures were for about 50kWh (180MJ) for
the 300 miles. And those figures are borne out by other test sites I
found - no I haven't got them to hand because it arose in another
discussion elsewhere. Might be able to dig them up if you are
interested. ireckon a cyclist ambling along at 15mph might need about a
horsepower.. 750W - and would take 20 hours. That's 15KWh or 55MJ? yeah.
within the same range as you. For a back-of-the-envelope calculation.


What ??? I can't imagine a human being able to develop a horsepower
for very long at all - more like 100 or 200 watts and even that would not be
sustainable for long. So how does the average "regular" cyclist ride a bike for
an hour or so at 15 mph covering 15 miles ?

Nick


  #147   Report Post  
The Natural Philosopher
 
Posts: n/a
Default Was: Moss/Lichen on roof, now we are into pollution.

Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

That is simply not so.


With 300 mile range and potentially one hour fast charge from flat, it
would be ideal for rural use and commuting.


If you add 'potential' to that I might believe you. Non of the electric or
hybrid vehicles I've read about being tested in real world conditions get
near their claims of range, etc. And a one hour charge rules out lead acid
batteries - so the cost of alternatives is presently prohibitive.



Not so. Things have really moved on in the last year or so. To the point
where there is at least one company brave enough to have built a lithium
polymer powered test car and be offering cell packs for sale. They have
repacakged the biggest they could find with safety circuitry and the
tests they came up with were close enough to my predictions for me to
feel they were not avaiting porcines.

Price is still an issue - the sort of stuff I buy retails at $3 per watt hour, so 50kWh is $150,000

Thst for torch battery sized stuff. That represents a sort of 'it won't
cost more than that' level. A hand built racing engine costs thet much
as well, and no one says that because a Cosworth F1 engine is 100 grand,
thats waht a Ka should cost as well..





What it won't do is 16 hour 1000 mile journeys...


Well, nor will any petrol car I know about without re-fuelling. And anyone
doing such a drive should have a couple of breaks anyway.



No, but the problem is the one hour minimum to completely refill its 'tank'

Here are some links

http://www.sae.org/automag/techbriefs/02-2002/page7.htm
This one is already 9 years old but predicts todays performamnce figures

http://lily.keri.re.kr/battery/wwwbo...ages96/56.html

Heres the record holding electric car for teh Pikes |Peak run

http://www.compactpower.com/pdf/2002...essRelease.pdf

Here is a company that can acatually supply 35kWh batteries for
cars...tho there is a whiff of bovine excrement about his one.
http://www.gatewayreports.com/reports/electrovaya.pdf

heres some data from a 1998 conference that pretty much says the same
thing I have been saying.
http://www.avere.org/evs15/press/evs_2.html

Ah. I found the one site I was looking for

www.acpropulson.com

This is a mean machine.

Enjoy :-)




  #148   Report Post  
The Natural Philosopher
 
Posts: n/a
Default Was: Moss/Lichen on roof, now we are into pollution.

Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
IMM wrote:

Mazda make a number of cars with rotary engines, but not sold here.


They sell rotary engined cars here.


The Wankle is best suited to high revving applications, hence the
sports car. The RX8 is an improved rotary and of only 1300cc giving 225
HP. See if a 1300cc piston engine can deliver that.


Since its specific fuel consumption is terrible for the power output, who
cares what the nominal capacity is? Apart from the likes of you, of
course. You could easily achieve 173 bhp/litre from a piston engine by
turbo or supercharging.



Its also very arguable what the capacity of a wankel actually is.

F1 engines exceed 200bhp per litre with no forced charging.
Top[ fuel drag cars are doing about 1000 bhp per liter with full nitro
and supercharging. Well for 5 seconds anyway :-)



Also these engines are physically
small with a very high power to weight ratio.


That, at least, is true.



Mmmm. I checked out some model plane electric motors. About a kilowatt
and 3/4 pound, so about 2bhp per pound. 200 brake horsepower for 100lb
weight anyone? and no gearbox or clutch? No wonder that electric Lithium
car at AC propulsion is gettin 0-60 times in under 4 seconds, and a 300
mile range...

They beat the fuel cell cars on everything at the tests.

www.acpropulsion.com






  #149   Report Post  
The Natural Philosopher
 
Posts: n/a
Default victorian/edwardian houses or new houses?

N. Thornton wrote:


Not 4x2 as far as I know, but I'm fairly sure they outlaw the ones
built with 3x 1.5". And I've seen 4x1" in one place.



Mmm. Bits of my old cedar shingled roof appeared to consist of

- and old broom handle nailed and lashed to a rotted bit of
- pine tree sawn into quarters. Quite a bit of this and
- an actual branch from an oak tree.
- and lots of other wobbly bits of timber. Not a sqare sawn bit in the
place except where some 'modern' bodging had been done with some 4x2.

In s. africa where thatch is often used and wood is scarce they tend to
use round poles tapering from 4" diameter and finishing at ofetn little
more than 2" for a 'rondavel"

They stay up and support the thatch just fine :-)

I am not decryng building regs, merely pointin out

that rooves are there to keep the rain off: A large tent does no better.


The timbers used are really all about the weight of the cladding.
In my case the imminent demise of the shingles was, with the leaking of
a tiled section and the impossibility of re-roofing without using
heavier rafters, that meant totally popping what they rested on etc etc,
that led me to fianally pull it down.


However, up till then it had been totally fine :-)




Regards, NT



  #150   Report Post  
RichardS
 
Posts: n/a
Default Was: Moss/Lichen on roof, now we are into pollution.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Dave Plowman wrote:

snip

Mmmm. I checked out some model plane electric motors. About a kilowatt
and 3/4 pound, so about 2bhp per pound. 200 brake horsepower for 100lb
weight anyone? and no gearbox or clutch? No wonder that electric Lithium
car at AC propulsion is gettin 0-60 times in under 4 seconds, and a 300
mile range...

They beat the fuel cell cars on everything at the tests.

www.acpropulsion.com



There are two problems with elecric motor vehicles that would have to be
overcome to make them viable.

First problem would be that they really need some kind of backup power. If
a conventional fuel vehicle (or indeed any fuel that can be quickly
recharged) runs out of or low on fuel then it is a quick and simple job to
put more in the tank. A battery powered vehicle would need some considerable
time recharging - either at the side of the road or at a recharge
point/"fuel" station. Forget to put the thing on charge last night? You're
stuck in the morning. Power cut? Ditto. The occasional long journey?
Forget it.

Second problem is one of recharge logistics.

Battery vehicles would represent a considerable advantage in towns and
cities. Quiet and pollution free at the point of use.

However, the majority of people living within large cities and towns do not
have designated parking spaces, and most of it is on-street parking.
Pavements would have to be dug up and publically accessible chargeing points
installed to be able to recharge such a vehicle, along with a suitable
payment mechanism. I can't see the LA taking too kindly to me stringing a
cable across the pavement to my house! Even in areas with controlled parking
zones there is no right to be able to park outside one's house, so the price
of someone parking in "my" space, abandoning a car or even leaving a skip
would be complete immobility for me. Visitors? Hmmm.

I'd have a battery powered vehicle at a sensible price and with decent
performance/range like a shot. But until these problems are solved, then
it's not viable.

--
Richard Sampson

email me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk




  #151   Report Post  
RichardS
 
Posts: n/a
Default Moss/Lichen on roof (was:victorian/edwardian houses or new houses?)

"RichardS" noaccess@invalid wrote in message
. ..
"Neil Jones" wrote in message
m...
Andy Hall wrote in message

. ..

That's no real issue and can easily be removed. I quite like to see
a certain amount of lichens on roof tiles. It makes them look more
interesting.....


Apparently lichens only grow in places of low atmospheric pollution,
so it's a good indicator of air quality, as well as any aesthetic
benefit.


but is the same true about moss? In fact, are moss and lichen synonymous?
I know that lichens are rarer than they once were.

I'm sitting working looking at the roof of the house opposite, and this is
liberally covered in mosses. This is sunny Twickenham, not that far out

of
London and close to the Heathrow flightpaths and one of London's arterial
road, so whereas this might not be an area particularly high in

atmospheric
pollution it certainly isn't the cleanest environment.

I've taken the liberty of crossposting this to uk.rec.gardning, in the

hope
that one of their knowledgeable netizens may be able to throw some light

on
the question.




Andy, Jaques, Mary, Nick,

many thanks - moss and lichen stuff was interesting.

I didn't quite expect the thread to wander off onto heated discussion about
pollution and vehicle motive power, but you never can tell with usenet (to
paraphrase Winnie the Poo). Sorry about that!

--
Richard Sampson

email me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk


  #152   Report Post  
Nick Maclaren
 
Posts: n/a
Default Was: Moss/Lichen on roof, now we are into pollution.


Followups set somewhere more relevant.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher writes:
|
| An electric car is only suitable for city use and will do nothing for
| congestion.
|
| That is simply not so.
|
| With 300 mile range and potentially one hour fast charge from flat, it
| would be ideal for rural use and commuting.
|
| Yes,indeed, it would. It is, I agree, a more realistic target than
| breeding flying pigs.
|
| 2) The petrol used in 300 miles by a typical modern car contains
| about 1 GJoule. If we assume a factor of two higher efficiency, then
| charging in an hour needs 140 KW. A standard domestic power circuit
| is rated at 7 KW. You have a factor of 20 to make up.
|
| I never said you would use the domestic circuit to fast charge. The
| scenario was a 'fats charge' station like a petrol station where you
| could plug in, have a pee, have a coffee, and come back with a more or
| less charged car in under an hour. Typically you would NOT run the thing
| totally flat - more like do 200 miles and then wait 40 minutes to charge it.

Well, excluding the minor detail that taking an hour to 'fill up'
where it currently takes 5 minutes is not something that I should
want to do, using a 200 A circuit safely or even practically isn't
like using a 13 A one. Even in industry, the maximum plug that is
used just like a domestic 13 A one is rated at 32 A.

Inter alia, contact corrosion, condensation and so on are BAD NEWS
at 200 A.

| Ah. You have assumed a factor of two efficincy. I think that you should
| be looking at 3 or more for a start. Petrol engines are not markedly
| effuicient at part throttle. Transmission and ancillary sttuff
| (alternator and other takeoffs - colling fans etc - sap more). They are
| 0% efficient sitting at traffic lights whereas electric motors can be
| stopped altogether.

I was estimating on the basis of distance driving. 50 KW is too low,
except for the smallest runabout, which would not meet most people's
requirements. 100 KW is more plausible, even given your factor of 3.

In article ,
"Nick Smith" writes:
|
| Dammit, a CYCLIST will expend some 20 MJ in 300 miles. Recharging
| that in an hour needs 6 KW! There is NO WAY that you will design a car
| to be as efficient as a cyclist, despite the motor lobby propaganda.
|
| Well I dunno about cyclists. My figures were for about 50kWh (180MJ) for
| the 300 miles. And those figures are borne out by other test sites I
| found - no I haven't got them to hand because it arose in another
| discussion elsewhere. Might be able to dig them up if you are
| interested. ireckon a cyclist ambling along at 15mph might need about a
| horsepower.. 750W - and would take 20 hours. That's 15KWh or 55MJ? yeah.
| within the same range as you. For a back-of-the-envelope calculation.
|
| What ??? I can't imagine a human being able to develop a horsepower
| for very long at all - more like 100 or 200 watts and even that would not be
| sustainable for long. So how does the average "regular" cyclist ride a bike for
| an hour or so at 15 mph covering 15 miles ?

At 200 W.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.
  #153   Report Post  
IMM
 
Posts: n/a
Default Was: Moss/Lichen on roof, now we are into pollution.


"RichardS" noaccess@invalid wrote in message
...

There are two problems with elecric motor
vehicles that would have to be
overcome to make them viable.

First problem would be that they really
need some kind of backup power. If
a conventional fuel vehicle (or indeed
any fuel that can be quickly
recharged) runs out of or low on fuel then
it is a quick and simple job to
put more in the tank.


A small Stirling engine/generator running on liquid fuel or LPG could be
onboard. This could cut in when the charge is low, when either parked or
moving. A Stirling is far cleaner burning being external combustion. This
is not a real probelm.

Second problem is one of recharge logistics.

Battery vehicles would represent a considerable advantage in towns and
cities. Quiet and pollution free at the point of use.

However, the majority of people living within
large cities and towns do not have designated
parking spaces, and most of it is on-street parking.


You are allowed to move down a public highway, but not stop on it. Parking
permits do not guarantee a parking place, they just prevent other people
parking.

Pavements would have to be dug up
and publically accessible chargeing points
installed to be able to recharge such a vehicle,
along with a suitable payment mechanism.


The streets were dug up to install comms cables, so tat is not a real
problem.

I can't see the LA taking too kindly to me stringing a
cable across the pavement to my house! Even
in areas with controlled parking zones there is
no right to be able to park outside one's house,
so the price of someone parking in "my" space,
abandoning a car or even leaving a skip
would be complete immobility for me. Visitors?
Hmmm.

I'd have a battery powered vehicle at a sensible
price and with decent performance/range like a
shot. But until these problems are solved, then
it's not viable.


The problems can be overcome.

The fantastic power/weight of electric motors and eliminating heavy and
power sapping transmission, combined with advances in batteries, make it
viable to have an engine/electric hybrid. The current crop have the engine
as No.1 power unit with the electric motor as backup. It would be the
reverse, with the engine assisting, if necessary, and acting as backup
power, if necessary, and generating power for the batteries.





---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004


  #154   Report Post  
The Natural Philosopher
 
Posts: n/a
Default Was: Moss/Lichen on roof, now we are into pollution.

RichardS wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Dave Plowman wrote:


snip

Mmmm. I checked out some model plane electric motors. About a kilowatt
and 3/4 pound, so about 2bhp per pound. 200 brake horsepower for 100lb
weight anyone? and no gearbox or clutch? No wonder that electric Lithium
car at AC propulsion is gettin 0-60 times in under 4 seconds, and a 300
mile range...

They beat the fuel cell cars on everything at the tests.

www.acpropulsion.com




There are two problems with elecric motor vehicles that would have to be
overcome to make them viable.

First problem would be that they really need some kind of backup power. If
a conventional fuel vehicle (or indeed any fuel that can be quickly
recharged) runs out of or low on fuel then it is a quick and simple job to
put more in the tank. A battery powered vehicle would need some considerable
time recharging - either at the side of the road or at a recharge
point/"fuel" station.



Not really. A breakdown truck with a big battery can recharge it at
about 5 miles range per minute. If you run out of fuel anywhere you are
in for a wait of usually an hour or more before the AA gets there.

I don't see it as any different frankly. You don't let your car run out
of petrol, and you shouldne'ty let it run out of charge either.



Forget to put the thing on charge last night? You're
stuck in the morning.



Forget to fill up with petrol? Your stuck.

Power cut? Ditto.



Petrol strike? Ditto.

The occasional long journey?



Plan it with one hour stops every 300 miles. Forced breaks :-) You
shouldn't be driving more than 5 hours without a break anyway.




Forget it.

Second problem is one of recharge logistics.

Battery vehicles would represent a considerable advantage in towns and
cities. Quiet and pollution free at the point of use.

However, the majority of people living within large cities and towns do not
have designated parking spaces, and most of it is on-street parking.
Pavements would have to be dug up and publically accessible chargeing points
installed to be able to recharge such a vehicle, along with a suitable
payment mechanism. I can't see the LA taking too kindly to me stringing a
cable across the pavement to my house! Even in areas with controlled parking
zones there is no right to be able to park outside one's house, so the price
of someone parking in "my" space, abandoning a car or even leaving a skip
would be complete immobility for me. Visitors? Hmmm.



This IS a more curious and interestimg point, however for most urban
drivers, range is not a huge issue. They areusing the thing to go
shopping, or on other similar short trips. Actually I fill up every
couple of weeks for a 300 mile range tank, and I am in the country...if
you can't find somewhere tpo park the car - public car park etc - for an
hour or so every couple of weeks, that has a charge point..it might be
supermarket, underground car park or whatever. Easy enough to take a
pre-paid car and stick it in the slot, ane wire your car up to the
charger whilst you do the shopping.OK its not off peak...

...but in the end, in Canada they have on street electric points to plug
into to stop the cars freezing anyway. Something akin to a parking meter
with a plug is all it takes.





I'd have a battery powered vehicle at a sensible price and with decent
performance/range like a shot. But until these problems are solved, then
it's not viable.



I don;t see these as major problems frankly, as transition would be
slow. For example I know of a few places where LPG cars can fuel up now,
whereas a few years ago you bought your own gas and stuck it in the boot :-)

Even a ten minute stop at a charge station could net you 50 miles more
'fuel' in the 'tank'

For mne, right now, an electric 'shipping trolley' would be perfect to
replace the Punto. We don't use that car for distances.


--
Richard Sampson

email me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk





  #155   Report Post  
Toby
 
Posts: n/a
Default Was: Moss/Lichen on roof, now we are into pollution.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
For mne, right now, an electric 'shipping trolley' would be perfect to
replace the Punto. We don't use that car for distances.


Which seems to be the reason people get electric vehicles in Los Angeles,
nothing to do with environmental reasons, but the fact they are the only
thing you can park right outside the door to the shops (and free to boot).

--
Toby.

'One day son, all this will be finished'




  #156   Report Post  
IMM
 
Posts: n/a
Default Was: Moss/Lichen on roof, now we are into pollution.


"Toby" wrote in message
...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
For mne, right now, an electric 'shipping trolley' would be perfect to
replace the Punto. We don't use that car for distances.


Which seems to be the reason people get electric vehicles in Los Angeles,
nothing to do with environmental reasons, but the fact they are the only
thing you can park right outside the door to the shops (and free to boot).


A good way to encourage people to adopt them and clean the air up.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004


  #157   Report Post  
Jaques d'Alltrades
 
Posts: n/a
Default Moss/Lichen on roof (was:victorian/edwardian houses or new houses?)

The message
from "RichardS" noaccess@invalid contains these words:

I didn't quite expect the thread to wander off onto heated discussion about
pollution and vehicle motive power, but you never can tell with usenet (to
paraphrase Winnie the Poo). Sorry about that!


"Bother!" Said Pooh, regarding his emissions.

--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/
  #158   Report Post  
IMM
 
Posts: n/a
Default Was: Moss/Lichen on roof, now we are into pollution.


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
RichardS wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Dave Plowman wrote:


snip

Mmmm. I checked out some model plane electric motors. About a kilowatt
and 3/4 pound, so about 2bhp per pound. 200 brake horsepower for 100lb
weight anyone? and no gearbox or clutch? No wonder that electric Lithium
car at AC propulsion is gettin 0-60 times in under 4 seconds, and a 300
mile range...

They beat the fuel cell cars on everything at the tests.

www.acpropulsion.com


This web site appears out off date. No press release for two years,
indicating no progress.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004


  #159   Report Post  
Franz Heymann
 
Posts: n/a
Default Was: Moss/Lichen on roof, now we are into pollution.


"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

It is the loses at generation and transmission
losses. This can be reduced by having smaller
local power stations, the UK had them, using
natural gas, using CHP to heat the local district.

The indirect transmision losses involved in
shovelling large numbers of loads of small
amounts of fuel to thousands of small power
stations all over the country are vastly greater
than the transmission losses in power cables.

Not if the fuel is in natural gas pipelines.


I thought that the natural gas accessible to the UK was not all that

much
any more.


The North sea is still full of it and we also import the stuff from

Russia.

Transmission losses then are low and overall
energy efficient is very high. Sweden do this.

I bet they have not looked carefully
enough at the costs and energy
efficiencies of such a policy, unless
they are in a position in which the
fuel is naturally available dispersed
all over the country.

The last time I looked, there were highly viable.

The issues then become how to generate electricity without using
fossil
fuel and/or heat engines. Feul cells are not heat engines, but
usually
use fossil fuel. Nuclear power doesn't use fossil fuel, but does

use
a
heat engine. windmills do neither, but are ugly, of variable

power,
and
woefully inefficient in terms of space used.

"woefully inefficient in terms of space used"?
You see cows grazing under them. They can
be in the middle of fields and only occupy a small
footprint. There are windmill farms being built off-shore
all over the UK right now, Out of sight.

Sadly, incapable of producing anything more
than a negligible amout of power.

The UK is aiming for 25% of its power generation by wind. CHP

Stirling
boilers are also envisaged to fill gaps too.


It would surprise me if they ever got that much wind power installed.


There is a mass installation programme right now, with much off it just
off-shore, out of sight and in direct line of wind.

Britain is the windiest country in Europe.

Water and wave power does
neither, but is localised as to its applicability. solar cells

are
even
ore woefully inneficient,

Wet solar panels generally inefficient per squ foot,

You should not use such a meaningless
term in a discussion which is more or
less scientifically based.

??? You can get high efficient wet solar panels, but they are "very"
expensive. Flat plate collectors are a lot less efficient.

Efficiency is defined as power out/power in.
There is no room for a subsidiary phrase
"per square foot".

You should understand how flat plate collectors work.


I do indeed understand how they work. The term
"efficiency per square foot" is nonsense.
Do you mean to tell me that if a panel has
an efficiency of 1% per square
foot, the installation of, say, 200 sq. ft of
panel would have an efficiency of 200%?


No. Just that other panels, such as Thermomax, are far higher per squ foot
area than a normal cheap flat plate.


So with a large area of Thermolux you might get to 200% more easily than
with other panels?
Please, please understand that there is no such concept as "efficiency per
square foot" in either engineering or in physics. Efficiency is usually
simply the ratio between the output power and the input power of a system.

[snip]

Franz


  #160   Report Post  
Martin Brown
 
Posts: n/a
Default Was: Moss/Lichen on roof, now we are into pollution.

In message , IMM
writes

"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

The UK is aiming for 25% of its power generation by wind. CHP Stirling
boilers are also envisaged to fill gaps too.


CHP has its place in the right environment. But there are lots of
nimbys.


It would surprise me if they ever got that much wind power installed.


There is a mass installation programme right now, with much off it just
off-shore, out of sight and in direct line of wind.

Britain is the windiest country in Europe.


Though at the moment the emphasis seems to be entirely on installing
windmills and not on commissioning or operating them. The ones visible
along the A19 seem to be permanently feathered and non rotating. And
even if they were operating the wind doesn't blow continuously so you
still need backup conventional power stations for the cold windless
days.

But at least wind generation has more prospect of being useful than
solar power at our latitude and with the UK's cloudy maritime climate.

No. Just that other panels, such as Thermomax, are far higher per squ foot
area than a normal cheap flat plate.


Lashings of hot water on the few sunny days in mid summer, and horrid
technical problems in mid winter trying to keep the system from
freezing.

The technology and engineering is there, and it is improving by the month.
That is not the problem at all. It is educating the people about the new
technology and the will to push it through.


It is pretty hard to find applications where even the latest PV cells
are truly cost effective. You have to be a long way from any mains power
before their cost per watt justifies using them.

Solar power works reasonably at latitudes below about 45 degrees, but it
is quite frankly a complete non-starter at latitudes 55N and above.
Unless you count biomass conversion in forests for indirect fuel
generation.

Regards,
--
Martin Brown
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Your thoughts on build standard of 1950s council houses Mike Mitchell UK diy 18 January 14th 21 09:39 PM
water pipes in new houses David UK diy 21 October 27th 03 11:20 AM
New Houses John Smith UK diy 26 October 19th 03 04:16 PM
U values for older houses ? Paul(Retired) UK diy 4 September 10th 03 04:37 PM
those metal plates that cover windows and doors in abandoned houses Muddy Paws UK diy 0 July 3rd 03 03:58 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:11 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"