$5,000 Retro Fit Hybrid Kit
Bret Cahill
http://www.planetanalog.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=218400113&cid=NL_planet
Leave the big engine in there for the road trips.
The unsprung weight doubles and the batteries might not always be near
the original design center of mass but aside from that it's a really
good idea.
Bret Cahill
John Larkin
Install one on your car and report back.
John
Bret Cahill
>
>
> >Leave the big engine in there for the road trips.
>
> >The unsprung weight doubles and the batteries might not always be near
> >the original design center of mass but aside from that it's a really
> >good idea.
>
> >Bret Cahill
>
> Install one on your car and report back.
I'm in love with the idea.
It will be the most cost effective way to commute in a couple years
yet you'll still be able to haul your boat over the mountains.
The flexibility of adding anyone's new batteries as they become
commercially available is another advantage over conventional hybrids.
A big alternator and an electric ac compressor would be another plus.
Maybe they could even tweak conventional [large rpm range] engines to
run at an optimum speed when recharging.
You're sitting in traffic going nowhere. It's 115 F outside but the
ac is on and the main engine isn't running, at least not for a long
period of time.
Bret Cahill
Paul E. Schoen
"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:9d919c62-e414-4a75...@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
I came up with a similar idea a few years ago.
http://www.smart.net/~pstech/SHAMPAC.htm
It was too big a project for me alone and I had other priorities. There was
also the problem of making an electric motor that had sufficient torque and
speed for direct drive requirements, and I had planned to use a reduction
chain drive, but that added some mechanical engineering challenges. But I
found wheel hub motors available and in-use. And I found another website
that described how to replace the alternator with a larger motor/generator
which could be used to provide additional power from a battery bank and
also be used for regenerative braking. But that was not very efficient
because there was no easy way to unload the ICE to run on electric power
alone.
I recently saw the movie "End of Suburbia" http://www.endofsuburbia.com/
which gives a lot of insight into how we in the US got into the situation
we are now in, and the ramifications of "Peak Oil", which is where we are
now or will be in a few years. Cheap energy fueled the flight to the
suburbs and the inherently wasteful concept of long commutes and sprawling
individual houses for small families and individuals. Auto makers and oil
companies made more profits as such a lifestyle became more popular. But
there is a finite amount of oil in the ground, and even though we are
unlikely to "run out" suddenly like draining a gas tank, it will become
increasingly costly to extract, and price will rise exponentially as demand
continues to increase, until most people simply will not have the money to
afford it.
The economy relies on increased growth which is untenable globally, so we
will need to adapt to an economy based on sustainable moderation and
reduction of spending. Our economy as presently configured is doomed
because it depends on continued sales of items that are based on cheap
energy, materials, transportation, and labor. Much of the economy is about
trade in items that are not essential and based on rapid obsolescence to be
discarded and replaced. But we may very well. in our lifetimes, see a point
where it will become difficult for most people to afford the essential
food, clothing, shelter, and heating that are now taken for granted. We are
seeing the start of that with our present recession, and it's not going to
be fixed by bailing out companies that based their profits on a fatally
flawed concept of endless cheap resources. We can't spend our way out of
this. The retail economy cannot be based on huge expenditures for "toys",
including consumer electronics and sports cars and SUVs.
The movie can be viewed in its entirety on You-Tube:
http://www.endofsuburbia.com/previews.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3uvzcY2Xug
Paul
Bret Cahill
>
>
> > Leave the big engine in there for the road trips.
>
> > The unsprung weight doubles and the batteries might not always be near
> > the original design center of mass but aside from that it's a really
> > good idea.
>
> I came up with a similar idea a few years ago.
>
> http://www.smart.net/~pstech/SHAMPAC.htm
It's still desirable to reduce the unsprung weight. You should have
applied for a patent.
Nissan is looking at roadbed electrification, probably induction, but
even with that a lot of people are going to have to relocate to
cities.
Bret Cahill
John Larkin
<BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>> >Even the prototype is only $100K.
>>
>> >http://www.planetanalog.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=218400113&cid...
>>
>> >Leave the big engine in there for the road trips.
>>
>> >The unsprung weight doubles and the batteries might not always be near
>> >the original design center of mass but aside from that it's a really
>> >good idea.
>>
>> >Bret Cahill
>>
>> Install one on your car and report back.
>
>I'm in love with the idea.
I wonder how he plans to have the controls (gas pedal, brakes, engine
throttle, tranny, abs, engine control computer) interact with the new
wheel motors. Regen braking will get interesting. Or what it might do
the existing warranty and regulatory compliance certs.
Sounds like a huge bag-o-worms. Let's check back in a few years. Odds
are it will be dead and gone, as 99.9% of such ideas are.
Hybrids mainly get good mileage not because they have good drive
trains, but because they are ugly and aerodynamic. They do pay a big
price in battery weight.
>
>It will be the most cost effective way to commute in a couple years
>yet you'll still be able to haul your boat over the mountains.
>
>The flexibility of adding anyone's new batteries as they become
>commercially available is another advantage over conventional hybrids.
>
>A big alternator and an electric ac compressor would be another plus.
>Maybe they could even tweak conventional [large rpm range] engines to
>run at an optimum speed when recharging.
>
>You're sitting in traffic going nowhere. It's 115 F outside but the
>ac is on and the main engine isn't running, at least not for a long
>period of time.
I wonder about the economics of having two gas engines, the main one
and a much smaller one for accessories and low-speed cruising.
Batteries are terrible things.
John
John Larkin
Peak oil is always a few years ahead.
Cheap energy fueled the flight to the
>suburbs and the inherently wasteful concept of long commutes and sprawling
>individual houses for small families and individuals.
Cheap oil changed a predominantly rural, farming society into a
primarily urban one.
Auto makers and oil
>companies made more profits as such a lifestyle became more popular.
Of course. In the process they made us far, far more efficient and
prosperous and healthy than we had been.
But
>there is a finite amount of oil in the ground, and even though we are
>unlikely to "run out" suddenly like draining a gas tank, it will become
>increasingly costly to extract, and price will rise exponentially as demand
>continues to increase, until most people simply will not have the money to
>afford it.
They will buy less as the price increases. This will happen slowly,
and people will adapt.
>
>The economy relies on increased growth which is untenable globally, so we
>will need to adapt to an economy based on sustainable moderation and
>reduction of spending. Our economy as presently configured is doomed
>because it depends on continued sales of items that are based on cheap
>energy, materials, transportation, and labor. Much of the economy is about
>trade in items that are not essential and based on rapid obsolescence to be
>discarded and replaced. But we may very well. in our lifetimes, see a point
>where it will become difficult for most people to afford the essential
>food, clothing, shelter, and heating that are now taken for granted.
Food and clothing in the USA are incredibly cheap; go to a Wal-Mart
and see. Houses are available in Detroit for $1.
John
leona...@gmail.com
>
> Leave the big engine in there for the road trips.
>
> The unsprung weight doubles and the batteries might not always be near
> the original design center of mass but aside from that it's a really
> good idea.
>
> Bret Cahill
•• It is a stupid idea suitable only for men who
have money to burn and time to waste.
–– ––
Political correctness is destroying Europe.
America will be the next down the PC tube
greased by academic idiots like Scott Erb,
Noam Chumpsky, and Ward Churchill, and
Slick Willy & Hilly, Algore & Pelosi, and
now Barak Hussein Muhammad Obama, too.
Brent
> On Nov 10, 10:31?am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Even the prototype is only $100K.
>>
>> http://www.planetanalog.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=218400113&cid...
>>
>> Leave the big engine in there for the road trips.
>>
>> The unsprung weight doubles and the batteries might not always be near
>> the original design center of mass but aside from that it's a really
>> good idea.
"What makes our approach different is we don't need to modify anything
in existing vehicles to turn them into a hybrid," said Perry. "We
install the motor in the space between the brake mechanism and the hub
without any other modifications."
I wish the image had the resolution to be readable, but that system
looks like it would push the wheels out (by going between the wheel
and the brake) and disturb the suspension geometry that would require
other changes.
The car would not drive well with all the battery weight and changed
suspension geometry without numerous other changes.
If there is something that hangs on the inboard side it might work by
making FWD cars be RWD cars in electric mode, but it would interfere
with drive shafts in the front on FWD cars and the rear axle or drive
shafts on RWD cars. Front hubs or spindles on RWD cars won't accept
something hanging inside the brake very well in most cases.
leona...@gmail.com
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> .wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:12:39 -0500, "Paul E. Schoen"
> Peak oil is always a few years ahead.
•• "Peak Oil" at the present time, has evolved
from a production modeling resource into
a marketing scam.
It worked quite well in 1956 to accurately
predict that United States oil production
would peak between 1965 and 1970. But
when Hubbert turned to foreign sources
he lost his way not understanding the way
Arabs and Russians do business,
Unquestionably, Peak Oil's models were
responsible for the surge in prices for crude in
the futures markets. Added to that the API's
reluctance to accept the concept of "abiotic oil"
allowed the Sa'uds and Russians to conceal
their increased resources by drilling their old
unproductive holes deeper.
> Cheap energy fueled the flight to the
> >suburbs and the inherently wasteful concept of long commutes and sprawling
> >individual houses for small families and individuals.
>
> Cheap oil changed a predominantly rural, farming society into a
> primarily urban one.
>
> Auto makers and oil
> >companies made more profits as such a lifestyle became more popular.
>
> Of course. In the process they made us far, far more efficient and
> prosperous and healthy than we had been.
>
> But
> >there is a finite amount of oil in the ground,
•• Bullshit!!!! There is ONE well in the south
Atlantic (still under development) that has
reserves sufficient to supply USA with all
its' needs for centuries.
In neighbouring fields, Exxon, BP, China,
Saudi Arabia, etc, are all drilling 10 miles
below the surface.
Want to know more Google for "Tupi",
Petrobras, Sustainable oil, "Deep Hot
Biosphere" ...
and even though we are
> >unlikely to "run out" suddenly like draining a gas tank, it will become
> >increasingly costly to extract, and price will rise exponentially as demand
> >continues to increase, until most people simply will not have the money to
> >afford it.
•• BULLSHIT!!
Bret Cahill
>
> >> >http://www.planetanalog.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=218400113&cid...
>
> >> >Leave the big engine in there for the road trips.
>
> >> >The unsprung weight doubles and the batteries might not always be near
> >> >the original design center of mass but aside from that it's a really
> >> >good idea.
>
> >> >Bret Cahill
>
> >> Install one on your car and report back.
>
> >I'm in love with the idea.
>
> I wonder how he plans to have the controls (gas pedal, brakes, engine
> throttle, tranny, abs, engine control computer) interact with the new
> wheel motors.
That's why he's selling it as a kit. It may not work as an
aftermarket industry.
> Regen braking will get interesting. Or what it might do
> the existing warranty and regulatory compliance certs.
Some states may outlaw it.
> Sounds like a huge bag-o-worms. Let's check back in a few years. Odds
> are it will be dead and gone, as 99.9% of such ideas are.
It's not for everyone but it's certain he'll have a big market by the
time it's ready.
> Hybrids mainly get good mileage not because they have good drive
> trains, but because they are ugly and aerodynamic.
To be sure a diesel Rabbit does about as well as a Prius at freeway
speeds but the biggest advantage with plug in hybrids, more important
than the ability to scoot through an intersection 2X faster than a
diesel Rabbit, is being able to avoid gasoline altogether on most
trips.
Unlike a Prius or Tesla, a retrofitted large engine vehicle will still
be able to tow a trailer up a mountain.
> They do pay a big
> price in battery weight.
Battery cost may be a bigger issue.
> >It will be the most cost effective way to commute in a couple years
> >yet you'll still be able to haul your boat over the mountains.
> >The flexibility of adding anyone's new batteries as they become
> >commercially available is another advantage over conventional hybrids.
> >A big alternator and an electric ac compressor would be another plus.
> >Maybe they could even tweak conventional [large rpm range] engines to
> >run at an optimum speed when recharging.
> >You're sitting in traffic going nowhere. It's 115 F outside but the
> >ac is on and the main engine isn't running, at least not for a long
> >period of time.
> I wonder about the economics of having two gas engines, the main one
> and a much smaller one for accessories and low-speed cruising.
Supposedly some expensive cars already have. A large engine is only a
thousand or so dollars so the cost of two engines will not be an issue
compared to the fuel savings.
> Batteries are terrible things.
But they are steadily getting better.
Some materials prof at ASU claims he has a rechargheable zinc air
battery, cheap materials yet 2X the energy of Li-ion.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
>
> •• "Peak Oil" at the present time, has evolved
> from a production modeling resource into
> a marketing scam.
Hey, he's on _your_ side.
Anyway how's your "CO2 Is Good for You" video coming along?
Remember to have a large sign in the background that tells everyone
you are inhaling "100% natural organic CO2."
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
>
And when the recession is over the price of fuel will soar to $10/
gallon and beyond.
Bret Cahill
leona...@gmail.com
•• after you, sucker!!!
jim
There is something wrong with your hallucinations. According to
Petrobras the Tupi oil field contains 5-8 billion barrels. The world
uses 31 billion a year.
Bret Cahill
> > Atlantic (still under development) that has
> > reserves sufficient to supply USA with all
> > its' needs for centuries.
>
> > In neighbouring fields, Exxon, BP, China,
> > Saudi Arabia, etc, are all drilling 10 miles
> > below the surface.
>
> > Want to know more Google for "Tupi",
> > Petrobras, Sustainable oil, "Deep Hot
> > Biosphere" ...
>
> There is something wrong with your hallucinations. According to
> Petrobras the Tupi oil field contains 5-8 billion barrels. The world
> uses 31 billion a year.
Some are calling it "The Long Goodbye."
It'll be a "long goodbye" for those making over several hundred
thousand a year.
For the rest it will be a fast and ugly down grading of lifestyle.
Bret Cahill
John Larkin
And it will still be cheaper than a gallon of milk.
John
krw
Or pint of coffee.
leona...@gmail.com
•• You are too lazy, jim. You took the first
estimate when they hit oil. It has been revised
upward 3 or more times. Petrobras is chilling
about the numbers but people are speaking of
a factor of 100
leona...@gmail.com
> > > There is ONE well in the south
> > > Atlantic (still under development) that has
> > > reserves sufficient to supply USA with all
> > > its' needs for centuries.
>
> > > In neighbouring fields, Exxon, BP, China,
> > > Saudi Arabia, etc, are all drilling 10 miles
> > > below the surface.
>
> > > Want to know more Google for "Tupi",
> > > Petrobras, Sustainable oil, "Deep Hot
> > > Biosphere" ...
>
> > There is something wrong with your hallucinations. According to
> > Petrobras the Tupi oil field contains 5-8 billion barrels. The world
> > uses 31 billion a year.
•• Is there something wrong in your hallucinations
Some US jackasses do think USA "IS"
the world.
jim
Bret Cahill wrote:
>
> > > There is ONE well in the south
> > > Atlantic (still under development) that has
> > > reserves sufficient to supply USA with all
> > > its' needs for centuries.
> >
> > > In neighbouring fields, Exxon, BP, China,
> > > Saudi Arabia, etc, are all drilling 10 miles
> > > below the surface.
> >
> > > Want to know more Google for "Tupi",
> > > Petrobras, Sustainable oil, "Deep Hot
> > > Biosphere" ...
> >
> > There is something wrong with your hallucinations. According to
> > Petrobras the Tupi oil field contains 5-8 billion barrels. The world
> > uses 31 billion a year.
>
> Some are calling it "The Long Goodbye."
>
> It'll be a "long goodbye" for those making over several hundred
> thousand a year.
This is one guy's projection for oil prices from now to 2020:
http://www.theoildrum.com/files/image2415_0.png
The bottom graph is the price of oil projected into the future. The grey
areas in the graph are major recessions that bring the price of oil down
after it has spiked to a peak. We are in the first grey area now.
jim
Hmmm.... All this happened since Nov 12 when petrobras made that
announcement?
jim
Take another deep huff o your gasoline soaked bag and then explain where
in the US Brazil can be found.
leona...@gmail.com
•• You screw up and then try to pass your
stupidity on to me just like jackass Bret
Cahill.
leona...@gmail.com
> Bret Cahill wrote:
>
> > > > There is ONE well in the south
> > > > Atlantic (still under development) that has
> > > > reserves sufficient to supply USA with all
> > > > its' needs for centuries.
>
> > > > In neighbouring fields, Exxon, BP, China,
> > > > Saudi Arabia, etc, are all drilling 10 miles
> > > > below the surface.
>
> > > > Want to know more Google for "Tupi",
> > > > Petrobras, Sustainable oil, "Deep Hot
> > > > Biosphere" ...
>
> > > There is something wrong with your hallucinations. According to
> > > Petrobras the Tupi oil field contains 5-8 billion barrels. The world
> > > uses 31 billion a year.
>
for the hallucinations. USA is not the whole
world in case John hasn't noticed
>
> This is one guy's projection for oil prices from now to 2020:
>
> http://www.theoildrum.com/files/image2415_0.png
>
> The bottom graph is the price of oil projected into the future. The grey
> areas in the graph are major recessions that bring the price of oil down
> after it has spiked to a peak. We are in the first grey area now.
•• The fact is that the "oil drum is the company
created to exploit King Hubbert's computer
model. It is obsolete.
•• They were largely culpable for the grossly
overpriced oil on the commodities exchanges.
leona...@gmail.com
•• Go back to grade school, perhaps grade 3
learn to read.
—— ——
There are three types of people that you
can_not_talk_into_behaving_well. The
stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.
1- The stupid aren't smart enough to follow the
logic of what you say. You have to tell them
what is right in very simple terms. If they do
not agree, you will never be able to change
their mind.
2- The religious fanatic: If what you say goes
against their religious belief, they will cling to
that belief even if it means their death.
3- There is no way to reform evil- not in a
million years. There is no way to convince
the anthropogenic global warming alarmists,
the terrorists, serial killers, paedophiles, and
predators to change their evil ways, They
knew what they were doing was wrong, but
knowledge didn't stop them. It only made
them more careful in how they went about
performing their evil deeds.
Bret Cahill
> > > > > > Atlantic (still under development) that has
> > > > > > reserves sufficient to supply USA with all
> > > > > > its' needs for centuries.
>
> > > > > > In neighbouring fields, Exxon, BP, China,
> > > > > > Saudi Arabia, etc, are all drilling 10 miles
> > > > > > below the surface.
>
> > > > > > Want to know more Google for "Tupi",
> > > > > > Petrobras, Sustainable oil, "Deep Hot
> > > > > > Biosphere" ...
>
> > > > > There is something wrong with your hallucinations. According to
> > > > > Petrobras the Tupi oil field contains 5-8 billion barrels. The world
> > > > > uses 31 billion a year.
>
> > > •• Is there something wrong in your hallucinations
> > > Some US jackasses do think USA "IS"
> > > the world.
>
> > Take another deep huff o your gasoline soaked bag and then explain where
> > in the US Brazil can be found.
>
> •• You screw up and then try to pass your
> stupidity on to me just like jackass Bret
> Cahill.
Are rightards really going to purge Charlie Crist from the GOP?
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> > > > Atlantic (still under development) that has
> > > > reserves sufficient to supply USA with all
> > > > its' needs for centuries.
>
> > > > In neighbouring fields, Exxon, BP, China,
> > > > Saudi Arabia, etc, are all drilling 10 miles
> > > > below the surface.
>
> > > > Want to know more Google for "Tupi",
> > > > Petrobras, Sustainable oil, "Deep Hot
> > > > Biosphere" ...
>
> > > There is something wrong with your hallucinations. According to
> > > Petrobras the Tupi oil field contains 5-8 billion barrels. The world
> > > uses 31 billion a year.
>
> > Some are calling it "The Long Goodbye."
>
> > It'll be a "long goodbye" for those making over several hundred
> > thousand a year.
For millions in India it'll mean a short life.
> This is one guy's projection for oil prices from now to 2020:
>
> http://www.theoildrum.com/files/image2415_0.png
There's no way it'll be _that_ cyclical. It would be interesting to
know if factors like advances in alternative energy are taken into
account.
> The bottom graph is the price of oil projected into the future. The grey
> areas in the graph are major recessions that bring the price of oil down
> after it has spiked to a peak. We are in the first grey area now.
Oil will only be affordable when we are in a recession?
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> > Petrobras the Tupi oil field contains 5-8 billion barrels. The world
> > uses 31 billion a year.
>
> •• You are too lazy, jim. You took the first
> estimate when they hit oil. It has been revised
> upward 3 or more times. Petrobras is chilling
> about the numbers but people are speaking of
> a factor of 100
And to think that on alt.politics rightards were saying Obama
shouldn't have invested in this venture!
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
Fuel is already higher than milk.
Other commodities like copper and rare earth elements will go up as
well but not as fast as fuel.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
>
> >>http://www.planetanalog.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=218400113&cid...
>
> >> Leave the big engine in there for the road trips.
>
> >> The unsprung weight doubles and the batteries might not always be near
> >> the original design center of mass but aside from that it's a really
> >> good idea.
>
> "What makes our approach different is we don't need to modify anything
> in existing vehicles to turn them into a hybrid," said Perry. "We
> install the motor in the space between the brake mechanism and the hub
> without any other modifications."
>
> I wish the image had the resolution to be readable,
I couldn't find any patents or applications for Charles Perry. It was
probably invented back in the '70s.
Several companies are coming out with them:
http://nashville.bizjournals.com/nashville/stories/2009/10/12/story5.html
> but that system
> looks like it would push the wheels out (by going between the wheel
> and the brake) and disturb the suspension geometry that would require
> other changes.
> The car would not drive well with all the battery weight and changed
> suspension geometry without numerous other changes.
It might be better than spending 50K for a Volt.
> If there is something that hangs on the inboard side it might work by
> making FWD cars be RWD cars in electric mode, but it would interfere
> with drive shafts in the front on FWD cars and the rear axle or drive
> shafts on RWD cars. Front hubs or spindles on RWD cars won't accept
> something hanging inside the brake very well in most cases.
If axles were hollow they could be mounted on the outside of the
wheels.
Bret Cahill
jim
"leona...@gmail.com" wrote:
> > > > There is something wrong with your hallucinations. According to
> > > > Petrobras the Tupi oil field contains 5-8 billion barrels. The world
> > > > uses 31 billion a year.
> >
> �� It would seem that John Larkin is responsible
> for the hallucinations. USA is not the whole
> world in case John hasn't noticed
> >
>
Ah of course it must be John Larkin who is responsible for those
halucinations. Maybe another snort of gasoline will fix it ,,,
John Larkin
This morning in San Francisco, a gallon or regular gas costs $3.20 and
a gallon of whole milk is $3.99. A gallon of low-end drinking water
can cost a lot more.
I'd guess that making the milk liberated more carbon-based gases than
making and burning the gasoline.
I can drive 5 people from the Pacific Ocean
http://www.jimprice.com/sutro/tower1.jpg
to the Nevada border
ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/Exit201.jpg
on about $18 worth of gasoline, under $4 per person. If we stop for a
modest lunch, that will cost about twice as much as the fuel.
I don't understand why you are down on something that works so well.
John
John Larkin
<BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> Even the prototype is only $100K.
>>
>> >>http://www.planetanalog.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=218400113&cid...
>>
>> >> Leave the big engine in there for the road trips.
>>
>> >> The unsprung weight doubles and the batteries might not always be near
>> >> the original design center of mass but aside from that it's a really
>> >> good idea.
>>
>> "What makes our approach different is we don't need to modify anything
>> in existing vehicles to turn them into a hybrid," said Perry. "We
>> install the motor in the space between the brake mechanism and the hub
>> without any other modifications."
>>
>> I wish the image had the resolution to be readable,
>
>I couldn't find any patents or applications for Charles Perry. It was
>probably invented back in the '70s.
>
>Several companies are coming out with them:
>
>http://nashville.bizjournals.com/nashville/stories/2009/10/12/story5.html
This is the Mechanics Illustrated phenomenon: every month all sorts of
amazing inventions are announced, all of which will revolutionize our
lives and be on the market next year. That's been going on for 60
years or so. And they missed most of the things that have in fact
revolutionized our lives.
The systems you cite here don't appear to even have working prototypes
in operation. And none appear to involve technology that wasn't
available 10 years ago. Explain that.
John
leona...@gmail.com
> Last time on rec.autos.driving, "leonard7...@gmail.com"> >•• Bullshit!!!! There is ONE well in the south
> > Atlantic (still under development) that has
> > reserves sufficient to supply USA with all
> > its' needs for centuries.
>
> FINITE supply.
•• Indeed you are a stupid sucker.
Indeed you would prefer the obsolete crap
over the product of 2 brilliant science teams
that proved that crude oil is an infinite resource
with current reserves a factor of 100 time
current recorded reserves
•• Google is your friend -- use it!!!
Bret Cahill
>
> >> >>http://www.planetanalog.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=218400113&cid...
>
> >> >> Leave the big engine in there for the road trips.
>
> >> >> The unsprung weight doubles and the batteries might not always be near
> >> >> the original design center of mass but aside from that it's a really
> >> >> good idea.
>
> >> "What makes our approach different is we don't need to modify anything
> >> in existing vehicles to turn them into a hybrid," said Perry. "We
> >> install the motor in the space between the brake mechanism and the hub
> >> without any other modifications."
>
> >> I wish the image had the resolution to be readable,
>
> >I couldn't find any patents or applications for Charles Perry. It was
> >probably invented back in the '70s.
>
> >Several companies are coming out with them:
>
>
> This is the Mechanics Illustrated phenomenon:
The best lampoon was National Lampoon on MI:
"Convert your piano to diesel power."
Maybe the letter of recommendation from an admitted pimp / vandal to
Harvard Law School was better.
"And since I was living under an assumed name . . ."
> every month all sorts of
> amazing inventions are announced, all of which will revolutionize our
> lives and be on the market next year. That's been going on for 60
> years or so. And they missed most of the things that have in fact
> revolutionized our lives.
>
> The systems you cite here don't appear to even have working prototypes
> in operation. And none appear to involve technology that wasn't
> available 10 years ago.
Or a century ago.
A lot of stuff gets patented before it's cost effective.
> Explain that.
The price of fuel hadn't gone over $5/gallon back then.
Bret Cahill
John Larkin
Current US average at the pump is about $2.60.
John
Paul E. Schoen
"John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:4mk0g5hbeti1qevmt...@4ax.com...
The price of fuel should include the true costs of getting the raw material
(crude oil) and also the cost of its effect on the environment when it is
burned. So the war in the Middle East should most fairly be subsidized by
fuel taxes. We are already subsidizing terrorist activities with the
profits made by the Arabs and other countries who produce the oil, so why
not also subsidize our costs? Thus each individual may effectively vote on
the continuation of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by reducing
consumption or continuing with the escalation of wasted energy by accepting
Detroit's continued push to sell overpowered minidick compensation toys.
The truth is that oil companies want to keep consumption at its present
level or increasing so they can make more money. Our economy in the US is
based on continued growth which is unsustainable on a global (and even
local) level. We have seen how shaky our house of cards really is, and our
partial recovery from the events about a year ago will be followed by other
possibly even more catastrophic meltdowns. Definitely in our lifetimes we
will see and experience a radical change in the status quo and our
expectations of achieving lavish and wasteful lifestyles for all.
Paul
John Larkin
<pa...@peschoen.com> wrote:
>
>"John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
>news:4mk0g5hbeti1qevmt...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 17:08:35 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
>> <BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>The price of fuel hadn't gone over $5/gallon back then.
>>
>> Current US average at the pump is about $2.60.
>
>The price of fuel should include the true costs of getting the raw material
>(crude oil)
If I'm not paying for the cost of the crude oil when I buy gas, who
is?
and also the cost of its effect on the environment when it is
>burned. So the war in the Middle East should most fairly be subsidized by
>fuel taxes. We are already subsidizing terrorist activities with the
>profits made by the Arabs and other countries who produce the oil, so why
>not also subsidize our costs? Thus each individual may effectively vote on
>the continuation of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by reducing
>consumption or continuing with the escalation of wasted energy by accepting
>Detroit's continued push to sell overpowered minidick compensation toys.
OK, sell your car and bicycle. I'll wave as I drive past in the cold
rain.
John
Paul E. Schoen
"John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:43:06 -0500, "Paul E. Schoen"
> <pa...@peschoen.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
>>message
>>news:4mk0g5hbeti1qevmt...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 17:08:35 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
>>> <BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>The price of fuel hadn't gone over $5/gallon back then.
>>>
>>> Current US average at the pump is about $2.60.
>>
>>The price of fuel should include the true costs of getting the raw
>>material
>>(crude oil)
>
> If I'm not paying for the cost of the crude oil when I buy gas, who
> is?
All people who pay taxes of any kind, and our future generations who will
be paying the debt we are accumulating. Fuel taxes don't even pay for
keeping highways in good repair. We should be paying $2 or more per gallon
in addition to the price we now pay. Truckers who do most of the damage to
roadways are essentially subsidized to keep their inefficient rigs rolling,
and railroads are penalized so as not to create "unfair" competition.
>
>
> and also the cost of its effect on the environment when it is
>>burned. So the war in the Middle East should most fairly be subsidized by
>>fuel taxes. We are already subsidizing terrorist activities with the
>>profits made by the Arabs and other countries who produce the oil, so why
>>not also subsidize our costs? Thus each individual may effectively vote
>>on
>>the continuation of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by reducing
>>consumption or continuing with the escalation of wasted energy by
>>accepting
>>Detroit's continued push to sell overpowered minidick compensation toys.
>
> OK, sell your car and bicycle. I'll wave as I drive past in the cold
> rain.
Maybe you'll wave your limp dick. I have a dependable 1999 Saturn sedan
that averages 35 MPG and is more than adequate for my basic transportation
needs. I also have a 1989 Toyota 4WD pickup that gets about 22 MPG and it
provides the capability for hauling larger items and for occasional use in
conditions where a FWD vehicle won't make it. And there are situations
where walking or bicycling are viable options as well.
But most of the trucks and SUVs are purchased and driven by people who
don't need their power and size, except maybe on a rare occasion. Yet they
drive them every day on long commutes from their McMansions to their jobs
in the city. The auto makers we bailed out are still playing horsepower
wars, and even their hybrid models are promoted as having even more power,
and they brag about getting 24 MPG highway.
CAFE standards and laws prohibiting manufacture and sale of gas guzzlers
are not the way to go. Just add taxes to fuel reflecting the *real* cost,
and let the market regulate itself. If you want to purchase and drive a
fuel hog, fine, but you should pay for your extravagence every time you
fill up.
It is a similar situation with the ban on incandescent light bulbs. There
are situations where a CFL just won't work, such as an unheated barn in
Minnesota. An incandescent lamp is fully appropriate and it would be
reasonable to just add a $2 tax per bulb, rather than ban their sale.
A ban on anything that is in demand will just drive trade in the item
underground and allow criminals to make money. Just determine the *actual
cost* of something and tax it appropriately.
Paul
Bret Cahill
> >>>>The price of fuel hadn't gone over $5/gallon back then.
>
> >>> Current US average at the pump is about $2.60.
>
> >>The price of fuel should include the true costs of getting the raw
> >>material
> >>(crude oil)
>
> > If I'm not paying for the cost of the crude oil when I buy gas, who
> > is?
>
> All people who pay taxes of any kind, and our future generations who will
> be paying the debt we are accumulating.
Not that it's an immediate concern but the real cost is the climate.
The NY Times recently ran an article claiming that now most economists
agree that it will be more expensive for society to ignore AGW than to
do something about it.
The only long term solution is to get ground transportation powered by
the grid.
> Fuel taxes don't even pay for
> keeping highways in good repair.
Bureaucrats already have plans to tax everyone on a per mile basis --
no more privacy motoring around.
> We should be paying $2 or more per gallon
> in addition to the price we now pay.
The Car Talk guys said it should be $10.
> Truckers who do most of the damage to
> roadways are essentially subsidized to keep their inefficient rigs rolling,
> and railroads are penalized so as not to create "unfair" competition.
Highway taxes and even AGW are all moot issues in the near term.
Buffet just bought a coal hauling RR, BNSF.
The world's most astute investor just bet the ranch that the price of
liquid fuel will soon soar and there is money to be made hauling coal.
Back in the '70s during the OPEC embargo Norfolk and Western which
used coal fired steam engines all the way up into the '60s made so
much money they bought Southern RR.
At times there were up to 80 coal colliers waiting out in Hampton
Roads lined up for Pier 12.
Bret Cahill
"Southern Serves the South
Look Ahead, Look South"
-- Southern RR slogan
John Larkin
<pa...@peschoen.com> wrote:
So you're part of the problem that you're complaining about.
And US politicians, even the greenest Democrats, won't dare suggest
increasing the tax on gas. Indeed, they complain about oil company
profits raising the price of gas.
John
John Larkin
<BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> >>>>The price of fuel hadn't gone over $5/gallon back then.
>>
>> >>> Current US average at the pump is about $2.60.
>>
>> >>The price of fuel should include the true costs of getting the raw
>> >>material
>> >>(crude oil)
>>
>> > If I'm not paying for the cost of the crude oil when I buy gas, who
>> > is?
>>
>> All people who pay taxes of any kind, and our future generations who will
>> be paying the debt we are accumulating.
Nobody will pay the debt. We'll just print money.
>
>Not that it's an immediate concern but the real cost is the climate.
>
>The NY Times recently ran an article claiming that now most economists
>agree that it will be more expensive for society to ignore AGW than to
>do something about it.
The "most economists agree" bit is hilarious. And even if they did
agree, they'd usually be wrong.
You guys need something productive to do. All this worrying about the
future is making you neurotic.
John
Bret Cahill
>
> >> >>> Current US average at the pump is about $2.60.
>
> >> >>The price of fuel should include the true costs of getting the raw
> >> >>material
> >> >>(crude oil)
>
> >> > If I'm not paying for the cost of the crude oil when I buy gas, who
> >> > is?
>
> >> All people who pay taxes of any kind, and our future generations who will
> >> be paying the debt we are accumulating.
>
> Nobody will pay the debt. We'll just print money.
That's why fuel will be $5/gallon again next year and $10/gallon in 2
years.
> >Not that it's an immediate concern but the real cost is the climate.
>
> >The NY Times recently ran an article claiming that now most economists
> >agree that it will be more expensive for society to ignore AGW than to
> >do something about it.
> The "most economists agree" bit is hilarious.
They were including the shills at Hoover and the Chicago School.
> And even if they did
> agree, they'd usually be wrong.
I'ld like to see the sample myself.
> You guys need something productive to do. All this worrying about the
> future is making you neurotic.
Lots of opportunities in technical fields especially materials science
and heat transfer.
And in hauling coal.
Bret Cahill
John Larkin
Given that you like to post to an electronics group, you might
consider learning a little about electronics. Unlike neurotic fretting
about climate and energy issues that you can't control, electronics is
accessible and fun.
John
Paul E. Schoen
"John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
Yes, that's why I can't be too enthusiastic about being a Democrat. But it
beats the hell out of the GOP on most counts, and is the "lesser of two
evils". The status quo as represented by either party is inherently flawed.
The Republican agenda is fueled by big business and the almighty dollar,
with no regard for the long term effect on the environment and people
except for that which we have controlled by laws. The Democratic agenda is
based on entitlements and the assumed rights of individuals to be not only
allowed freedoms and attainment of an idealistic lifestyle, but be
subsidized by the government (ie, you and me), and not be required to take
responsibility for ones own actions and stupidity.
I am not a significant part of the problem. I have purchased my vehicles
from private parties and small businesses and I have the maintenance done
by local mechanics. My fuel consumption is probably half the average of
most US adults. If everyone lived as I do there would be no war in Iraq and
terrorists would lack the funds to carry on their world-wide agenda. People
who live beyond their means and practice deficit spending with the
assumption of a constantly expanding economy are the problem, and the
businesses that promote this through their ads are also to blame and they
deserve to go bust.
There IS going to be a major change in the way most of US=USA live in the
next few years. The recent wild fluctuations in our economy are just the
shock waves of a collision between our lifestyle and global reality. We are
seeing an "extinction burst" of behavior as businesses and people
desperately cling to and accelerate their usual MOs because that is all
they ever knew or cared to consider. And it worked in the past so they try
harder now that it is no longer viable.
It will be a difficult time, and the dangerous element of the equation is
human nature, at least the worst of it. People who ARE the problem are
manufacturing more of their kind, and many of them are genetically and
sociologically predisposed to criminal activity. As the situation becomes
critical, people who want so much but have so little to give will become
desperate, and will seek to get by force what they want from those of us
who still have anything worthwhile.
I just hope there are enough people with logical thought processes and
solid morality (and weapons) to avoid total chaos and anarchy. The writing
is on the wall...
Paul
krw
But like Slowman he can't do, only whine.
John Larkin
<pa...@peschoen.com> wrote:
What a downer! Design some electronics. You'll feel better.
John
Paul E. Schoen
"John Larkin" <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
>
> What a downer! Design some electronics. You'll feel better.
Yes, we should bury our heads in silicon crystals like Ostriches. And
reality will take a big bite out of our butts.
Maybe 2012 will be the end. 12/12/12 to be precise. Divide that by two and
you get 6/6/6.
Paul
John Larkin
So eat, drink, and be merry.
John
Bret Cahill
We need a motor - generator that is efficient over a broad rpm range
and doesn't require rare earth elements.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> increasing the tax on gas. Indeed, they complain about oil company
> profits raising the price of gas.
Low fuel taxes merely increases the shock of price increases onto the
individual.
For some like the EE with the wheel motor retro kit, it creates great
opportunities.
For others it might not be so good.
When the price of fuel soars in Europe, it's like a circuit with
current limiting resistors.
It isn't such a shock as the price of fuel is already high and they
are already fuel efficient and already have public transportation.
Bret Cahill
John Larkin
Why? Where would you get the batteries to run it?
The best fuel is hydrogen. The best way to store it is by attaching it
to carbon.
John
Bret Cahill
> >> accessible and fun.
> >We need a motor - generator that is efficient over a broad rpm range
> >and doesn't require rare earth elements.
> Why? Where would you get the batteries to run it?
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/23877/?a=f
> The best fuel is hydrogen. The best way to store it is by attaching it
> to carbon.
Buffet has figgered out how to cut his work week down to 15 minutes.
Bret Cahill
Jamie
Ah, the retirement dream, just enough to feel important/Wanted!
Bret Cahill
> >>>>accessible and fun.
>
> >>>We need a motor - generator that is efficient over a broad rpm range
> >>>and doesn't require rare earth elements.
>
> >>Why? Where would you get the batteries to run it?
>
> >http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/23877/?a=f
>
> >>The best fuel is hydrogen. The best way to store it is by attaching it
> >>to carbon.
>
> > Buffet has figgered out how to cut his work week down to 15 minutes.
> Ah, the retirement dream, just enough to feel important/Wanted!
Buffet probably knows the difference between working and prissing
around on national media.
Bret Cahill
krw
Unfortunately, you don't know the difference between working and
prissing around on the Usenet.
John Larkin
<BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>electronics is
>> >> accessible and fun.
>
>> >We need a motor - generator that is efficient over a broad rpm range
>> >and doesn't require rare earth elements.
>
>> Why? Where would you get the batteries to run it?
>
>http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/23877/?a=f
Cool. They do a press release a week after they get a grant, about the
thing they hope they can invent.
John
Bret Cahill
> >> >> accessible and fun.
>
> >> >We need a motor - generator that is efficient over a broad rpm range
> >> >and doesn't require rare earth elements.
>
> >> Why? Where would you get the batteries to run it?
>
> >http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/23877/?a=f
>
> Cool. They do a press release a week after they get a grant, about the
> thing they hope they can invent.
Were it not for massive government funding combustion gas turbines
would never have been developed, certainly not in a timely fashion.
Eventually they'll develop a cost effective battery or they'll prove
that it's impossible.
The funding speeds things up.
Bret Cahill
John Larkin
<BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> >>electronics is
>> >> >> accessible and fun.
>>
>> >> >We need a motor - generator that is efficient over a broad rpm range
>> >> >and doesn't require rare earth elements.
>>
>> >> Why? Where would you get the batteries to run it?
>>
>> >http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/23877/?a=f
>>
>> Cool. They do a press release a week after they get a grant, about the
>> thing they hope they can invent.
>
>Were it not for massive government funding combustion gas turbines
>would never have been developed, certainly not in a timely fashion.
Absurd.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_turbine#History
John
Bret Cahill
> >> >> >> accessible and fun.
>
> >> >> >We need a motor - generator that is efficient over a broad rpm range
> >> >> >and doesn't require rare earth elements.
>
> >> >> Why? Where would you get the batteries to run it?
>
> >> >http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/23877/?a=f
>
> >> Cool. They do a press release a week after they get a grant, about the
> >> thing they hope they can invent.
>
> >Were it not for massive government funding combustion gas turbines
> >would never have been developed, certainly not in a timely fashion.
>
> Absurd.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_turbine#History
The axial flow machine now used in most commercial aviation was first
proposed in Paris in 1853.
No commercial development whatsoever for 90 years.
After massive governmental spending in the 1940s GTs were developed
enough to become a commercial success.
We see the same thing with Stirling except the time lag is 200 years.
The Swedes spent a lot of taxpayer money and developed a 200 bar
engine for their submarines which was further developed by Sandia
[more gummint funding] and a utility, San Diego Gas and Electric
[quasi gummint].
Some transportation breakthroughs might be done privately, i. e.,the
wheel motor, but it's crazy to think that all energy solutions can be
developed in the garage following the software model.
Bret Cahill
John Larkin
You sound like a typical leftist: don't really understand technology
or economics, yet determined to have dominant political control over
both.
John
Bret Cahill
Anyone, good or evil, can prevail when his opponents all cut and run
from the issues.
Politics is a lot like that PepsiCo story where the secretary who was
"too busy" to give a complaint to company lawyers. It was a dumb
case. Two guys claimed that they invented bottled water or some such
nonsense. It was easy to win but PepsiCo's lawyers never heard about
the complaint and never made an appearance in court.
The bottled water guys won by default and the judge ordered PepsiCo to
pay them over a billion to the plaintiffs.
Bret Cahill
"95% of life is just showing up."
-- Woody Allen
Bernd Felsche
>Bret Cahill <BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>>After massive governmental spending in the 1940s GTs were developed
>>enough to become a commercial success.
>>
>>We see the same thing with Stirling except the time lag is 200 years.
>>
>>The Swedes spent a lot of taxpayer money and developed a 200 bar
>>engine for their submarines which was further developed by Sandia
>>[more gummint funding] and a utility, San Diego Gas and Electric
>>[quasi gummint].
>>Some transportation breakthroughs might be done privately, i. e.,the
>>wheel motor, but it's crazy to think that all energy solutions can be
>>developed in the garage following the software model.
>You sound like a typical leftist: don't really understand technology
>or economics, yet determined to have dominant political control over
>both.
The first two are pre-requisites for the third.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Politics is the art of looking for trouble,
X against HTML mail | finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly
/ \ and postings | and applying the wrong remedies - Groucho Marx
Bernd Felsche
> John Larkin wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:40:17 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
>> >Some transportation breakthroughs might be done privately, i. e.,the
>> >wheel motor, but it's crazy to think that all energy solutions can be
>> >developed in the garage following the software model.
Wheel motors are not a breakthrough. vis Lohner Porsche. Hub motors.
Over 100 years ago.
>> You sound like a typical leftist: don't really understand technology
>> or economics, yet determined to have dominant political control over
>> both.
>Anyone, good or evil, can prevail when his opponents all cut and run
>from the issues.
Nobody can prevail over evil physical limits.
Bret Cahill
> >> >wheel motor, but it's crazy to think that all energy solutions can be
> >> >developed in the garage following the software model.
>
> Wheel motors are not a breakthrough.
Everything was a breakthrough once upon a time.
> vis Lohner Porsche. Hub motors.
> Over 100 years ago.
Talking about unsprung weight!
Bret cahill
Bernd Felsche
>> >> >>electronics is
>> >> >> accessible and fun.
>>
>> >> >We need a motor - generator that is efficient over a broad rpm range
>> >> >and doesn't require rare earth elements.
>>
>> >> Why? Where would you get the batteries to run it?
>>
>> >http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/23877/?a=f
>>
>> Cool. They do a press release a week after they get a grant, about the
>> thing they hope they can invent.
>Were it not for massive government funding combustion gas turbines
>would never have been developed, certainly not in a timely fashion.
Oh really? There was a lot of private enterprise developing gas
turbines and a great deal of competition within the industry. The
physical limits of early implementations were understood and were
known to be resolvable by using more esoteric materials.
>Eventually they'll develop a cost effective battery or they'll prove
>that it's impossible.
We already know the dead ends, The fundamental, physical limits.
>The funding speeds things up.
Nope. it just speeds up people who don't know any better, and thhose
seeking to profit from ignorance, making some dough.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | The most dangerous ignorance is the
X against HTML mail | ignorance of the educated class.
/ \ and postings | -- Thomas Sowell
Bret Cahill
> >> >> >> accessible and fun.
>
> >> >> >We need a motor - generator that is efficient over a broad rpm range
> >> >> >and doesn't require rare earth elements.
>
> >> >> Why? Where would you get the batteries to run it?
>
> >> >http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/23877/?a=f
>
> >> Cool. They do a press release a week after they get a grant, about the
> >> thing they hope they can invent.
> >Were it not for massive government funding combustion gas turbines
> >would never have been developed, certainly not in a timely fashion.
>
> Oh really? There was a lot of private enterprise developing gas
> turbines and a great deal of competition within the industry.
Just no commercial success stories until _after_ the massive gummint
funding.
> The
> physical limits of early implementations were understood and were
> known to be resolvable by using more esoteric materials.
Which only happened _after_ massive gummint spending.
> >Eventually they'll develop a cost effective battery or they'll prove
> >that it's impossible.
>
> We already know the dead ends, The fundamental, physical limits.
>
> >The funding speeds things up.
>
> Nope.
Yup.
Bret Cahill