Boy, a whole flock of 'em flew over that time.
Don Lancaster
http://www.tilleyfoundation.com/vehicle.htm
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email: d...@tinaja.com fax 847-574-1462
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Dr. Bob
extension cord to run that 100KW motor. Maybe they've solved the problem
of extracting energy from cucumbers. What do you think?
Dr. Bob
Don Lancaster
A 130 hp motor would require a wiring rating something like 1500 amps at
100 volts.
Perhaps a half inch by two inch silver busbar, rather than the doorbell
wire they are using.
This is the first of many red flag warnings of possible bogosity.
It is not politically correct to call "investors" cucumbers.
Regardless of how Swift the idea is.
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster
Harry Conover
> "Dr. Bob" wrote:
> >
> > I looked at the web site closely and cannot find where they hide the
> > extension cord to run that 100KW motor. Maybe they've solved the problem
> > of extracting energy from cucumbers. What do you think?
> > Dr. Bob
> >
> > Don Lancaster wrote:
> > >
> > > http://www.tilleyfoundation.com/vehicle.htm
> > >
> > > --
> > > Many thanks,
> > >
> > > Don Lancaster
>
> A 130 hp motor would require a wiring rating something like 1500 amps at
> 100 volts.
> Perhaps a half inch by two inch silver busbar, rather than the doorbell
> wire they are using.
Actually, in one of the photos the guy appears to be terminating
something like #6 cable. Not bell wire, still hardly capable of
driving a 130 hp motor at low voltage.
> This is the first of many red flag warnings of possible bogosity.
Many indeed. In fact, this site is the closest to that of
BlacklightPower that I have run across in several years, and even
funnier. Evidently the ideas is to hire people to perform work that
appears credible, to create the illusion that the scam itself is
credible.
For me, it's truly difficult to imagine anyone with an IQ above that
of a drooling idiot who would fall victim to such an obvious scam.
The things that struck me as totally hilarious in their web site was
first their choice of an antique DeLorean for their test platform.
Evidently they plan to rip off the DeLorean's styling and design for
their product as well, since their promotional pitch clearly that
their product will be nearly identical. Their justificaton for secrecy
is another cause of a good horse laugh, but their really winning bit
that earns them the Net Scam of The Year Award is their claim that:
"Control center for the battery bank only allows what is needed to
keep the batteries charged while in operation no matter what the speed
or discharge from the battery bank. Your battery system will be fully
charged at all times while in use. Simply get in, start the car and
drive like any other vehicle."
Plus:
"The difference is you have no need for fuel and you do not have to
stop the vehicle to charge it after driving. There is no pollution and
you can cruise the highways at the same speed as any other vehicle."
Wow, these guys have evidently discovered a source of free energy,
although less "open minded" people might just make the mistake of
believing the entire Tilley enterprise is simply a shallow scheme to
fleece the naive and ignorant.
At any rate, thanks Don for pointing out this rather entertaining bit
of Tennessee technological/business acumen. In fact, it is the
funniest thing I've heard of from Tennessee since the Scopes Trial!
:-)
Bravo! More please!
Harry C.
p.s. I wonder if those guys performing the transformation of a
DeLorian to battery operation are part of the scam, or simply guys
hired to do a converson, of if they realize how Mr. and Mrs. Tilley
are using their photos as a tool to pull the wool over people's eyes?
Don Lancaster
Actually, after checking, the Delorian is apparently not all that heavy
a platform. 2700 pounds.
Less with engine removed.
There is one use for drooling idiots.
Once they are able to drool out of both sides of their mouth, it means
they finally got the trailer level.
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster
Duke McMullan N5GAX
news:7ce4e226.02083...@posting.google.com...
> For me, it's truly difficult to imagine anyone with an IQ above that
> of a drooling idiot who would fall victim to such an obvious scam.
Sigh. I wish it were that simple . . . natural selection would take care
of the problem in short order.
I'm afraid it's ignorance, not just a room-temperature IQ problem. Anyone
with a reasonable background in the sciences is going to see that these
bozos are flouting conservation of energy, and will instantly become very
suspicious.
Without that background, it can look pretty good. Even with a significant
scientific background, it can look good if you've acquired an anti-science
or anti-scientific-establishment bias somewhere.
If you WANT it to be real, the temptation to believe is strong. A
pollution-free, fuelless vehicle is a wonderful idea (I know, Don.) -- I
sure want one. Unfortunately (?), my faith in CoE exceeds my wantitanyway
tendencies. Such is life.
Let me encourage anyone who thinks this frau^H^H^H^Hvehicle works as
advertised to invest heavily in the company. When you're driving one of
their vehicles and laughing at us, let us know where we may examine your
car so you can have the last laugh in person.
We'll be waiting.
Patiently,
d
--
New Mexico: Protecting Arizona from Texas since 1912!
Duke McMullan n5gax nss13429rl(fe) (505)255-4642 mtm...@qwest.net
John
wrote:
>
>http://www.tilleyfoundation.com/vehicle.htm
Any guesses what their excuse will be when they fail to perform as
advertised? Sure, they may show up at Nashville on September 7, and
they may drive around a bit. But no way in hell will they drive all
day with the batteries left fully charged. There are few things you
can be certain about in life -- this is one of them.
Don Lancaster
Newman's usual excuse was that the rear axle ratio was wrong and the
junkyard wasn't open.
John
wrote:
>http://www.tilleyfoundation.com/vehicle.htm
"The difference is you have no need for fuel and you do not have to
stop the vehicle to charge it after driving. There is no pollution
and you can cruise the highways at the same speed as any other
vehicle."
"Control center for the battery bank only allows what is needed to
keep the batteries charged while in operation no matter what the
speed or discharge from the battery bank. Your battery system will
be fully charged at all times while in use. Simply get in, start
the car and drive like any other vehicle."
Yeah, right.
They claim they'll be running it all day at the Nashville
Superspeedway on September 7.
If anybody reading this can make it to the speedway to "witness" this
event, please do so. Please get as close a look as you can, to be
sure they aren't hiding a fuel tank and a well-muffled genset to
charge the batteries as they spend long hours crawling around the
track between very quick and very rare forays up to high speeds.
Le's make sure these guys get the publicity they deserve...
Steve Zehner
when they get in the car and with lots of driver changes . . . .
"John" <john_j...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d7366c1....@netnews.att.net...
C. Joseph Long
web page will be what they say on Sept. 8. Seriously, are they hoping
there will be so much else in the news that the report of their "event"
won't even make it in?
I hope somebody posts the outcome of the Sept. 7 demo. My guess as to
its most likely outcome is that some external event is used as an excuse
for its not happening.
Note that the DeLorean is not mid-engined; the engine is hung out behind
the axle, for reasons nobody could really figure out at the time. The
quoted 35f/65r weight distribution is plausible (but low) if they've
replaced the engine with a motor, but cars like that really want to
become front-engined, often at embarassing times.
Sounds like a waste of a perfectly good DeLorean, to me.
Maybe we need a newsgroup of the form sci.engr.bogus, for discussion of
things like this and the three-wheel Dale of a couple of decades ago,
which was claimed to turn right angles without tipping over. Of course,
the radius of the turn wasn't specified.
Joe
Don Lancaster
Might be some hidden pedals as well.
John Musielewicz
HaHaHaHaha You two suckers are bleeding so bad its uproariously funny,
moose
Bob Casanova
sci.skeptic, posted by john_j...@hotmail.com (John):
>On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 14:38:23 -0700, Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com>
>wrote:
>
>>http://www.tilleyfoundation.com/vehicle.htm
Nice looking car...just a couple of questions:
1) Why does an "pure electric" vehicle need a transmission
(and have the locomotive manufacturers been missing
something obvious here)?
From the website:
"Control center for the battery bank only allows what is
needed to keep the batteries charged while in operation no
matter what the speed or discharge from the battery bank.
Your battery system will be fully charged at all times while
in use.",
and:
"State of the art metal fabrication to construct support for
the electric motor, battery bank, control center and the TEV
device was completed in July of 2002. "
2) What the hell is a "TEV device"? From the description the
claim is that this mysterious "device" supplies all the
power and from the stated capabilities, it sounds like it
may require new fuel rods (or tritium) occasionally...no,
wait; it specifically says "no fuel". I guess it runs on
clean thoughts...or perhaps zero-point energy. Dean Drive,
anyone?
<snip>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
MasterCougar
news:tij7nu8vt4sku9erv...@4ax.com:
> 1) Why does an "pure electric" vehicle need a transmission
> (and have the locomotive manufacturers been missing
> something obvious here)?
>
The same reason an ordinary bicyle has gears. Believe it or not, but
electric cars do have transmission systems too.
--
Marc,
This is where I would normally put a funny sig, but now I just don't have
it in me.
Steve Spence
conditions.
--
Steve Spence
Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter
& Discussion Boards:
http://www.green-trust.org
Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.dns2go.com/
ssp...@green-trust.org
"C. Joseph Long" <j-l...@sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:RAOc9.69194$Xa.35...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
<snip>
Steve Spence
--
Steve Spence
Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter
& Discussion Boards:
http://www.green-trust.org
Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.dns2go.com/
ssp...@green-trust.org
"Steve Zehner" <zip...@BellSouth.net> wrote in message
news:PLMc9.47822$vY2.1...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com...
Steve Spence
options in many applications. some electric conversions go the
transmissionless route. top speed suffers.
--
Steve Spence
Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter
& Discussion Boards:
http://www.green-trust.org
Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.dns2go.com/
ssp...@green-trust.org
"MasterCougar" <master...@snotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns927DB654C73...@130.133.1.4...
Harlan Messinger
It's not like it matters a whole hell of a lot. None of this is of any
use to them until they find someone to sell the technology to, and
then the instant the first person not in league with them gets into
one of their cars and runs out of locomotion, the jig will be up.
That's what's so silly about all of this, and all the supposed
inventors of perpetual motion mechanisms. They all whine that no one
will issue them a patent. Well, you don't NEED a patent to build and
sell products. At least ONE of them should by now have gone ahead and
marketed products based on his technology, if indeed there was any
chance of continuing the deception once the products hit the stores.
--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.
Harlan Messinger
>On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 13:38:48 GMT, the following appeared in
>sci.skeptic, posted by john_j...@hotmail.com (John):
>
>>On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 14:38:23 -0700, Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.tilleyfoundation.com/vehicle.htm
>
>Nice looking car...just a couple of questions:
>
>1) Why does an "pure electric" vehicle need a transmission
>(and have the locomotive manufacturers been missing
>something obvious here)?
Even in an electric vehicle, the power still has to be transmitted to
the wheels, doesn't it? Otherwise, you've got an electric motor
whirring away under the hood, and wheels that don't go anywhere.
>
>From the website:
>
>"Control center for the battery bank only allows what is
>needed to keep the batteries charged while in operation no
>matter what the speed or discharge from the battery bank.
>Your battery system will be fully charged at all times while
>in use.",
>
>and:
>
>"State of the art metal fabrication to construct support for
>the electric motor, battery bank, control center and the TEV
>device was completed in July of 2002. "
>
>2) What the hell is a "TEV device"? From the description the
>claim is that this mysterious "device" supplies all the
>power and from the stated capabilities, it sounds like it
>may require new fuel rods (or tritium) occasionally...no,
>wait; it specifically says "no fuel". I guess it runs on
>clean thoughts...or perhaps zero-point energy. Dean Drive,
>anyone?
>
><snip>
--
Don Lancaster
Harlan Messinger
usually the correct one" to William of Ockham. This is commonly known
as Occam's (or Ockham's) Razor, but this is not what he said. He
said, more or less, "Do not add unnecessary complexity". It was an
admonition not to add more to a theory than was necessary to explain
the facts. It wasn't a way of choosing between alternate theories (and
wouldn't be a logically valid one, anyway).
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node10.html
Bob Casanova
sci.skeptic, posted by MasterCougar
<master...@snotmail.com>:
>On the dark and dreary 02 Sep 2002 Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> posted
>news:tij7nu8vt4sku9erv...@4ax.com:
>
>> 1) Why does an "pure electric" vehicle need a transmission
>> (and have the locomotive manufacturers been missing
>> something obvious here)?
>>
>
> The same reason an ordinary bicyle has gears. Believe it or not, but
>electric cars do have transmission systems too.
Interesting, especially since they aren't needed for
electric locomotives. Check out the torque characteristics
of electric motors to see why they aren't. AAMOF, the
biggest worry with electric propulsion is overheating at
low-speed/high-load, which the railroads whipped quite a
while ago.
I suspect that the electric cars with transmissions are
hybrids (but I could be wrong; certainly wouldn't be the
first time...). Or maybe the auto makers thought
transmissionless vehicles wouldn't sell.
Bob Casanova
in sci.skeptic, posted by Harlan Messinger
<h.mes...@comcast.net>:
>Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
<snip>
>>1) Why does an "pure electric" vehicle need a transmission
>>(and have the locomotive manufacturers been missing
>>something obvious here)?
>
>Even in an electric vehicle, the power still has to be transmitted to
>the wheels, doesn't it? Otherwise, you've got an electric motor
>whirring away under the hood, and wheels that don't go anywhere.
Ummm...by "transmission" I assumed "multi-geared
transmission". If the only job of this "transmission" is to
connect/disconnect the motor from the wheels, it isn't what
I'd call a "transmission" at all; just a clutch. And even
this isn't needed, since the motor is perfectly happy at
zero RPM with no load (unlike a normal IC engine), and can
remain coupled to the driveline permanently; just apply
electric current to drive away.
Don Widders
news:32canuc6icu6qouoo...@4ax.com...
My electric truck has no transmission and I don't miss being without it (the
transmission, that is!)
Don W.
Don Widders
My truck uses a transaxle motor. There really is no transmission, although
it is my understanding that one side of the transaxle motor has some sort of
orbital gear thingy that acts as a differential.
Don W.
MasterCougar
<h.mes...@comcast.net> posted news:2ss7nu4mobfnklvtq0rpm6e70nf381ktih@
4ax.com:
> Even in an electric vehicle, the power still has to be transmitted to
> the wheels, doesn't it? Otherwise, you've got an electric motor
> whirring away under the hood, and wheels that don't go anywhere.
>
>
Unless the electric motor is attached directly to the wheel.
MasterCougar
news:32canuc6icu6qouoo...@4ax.com:
> Interesting, especially since they aren't needed for
> electric locomotives. Check out the torque characteristics
>
Oh, I didn't say they were needed, only that I've seen it. I saw one
electric motor that was a planetary gear system. Two sets of electric
drives essentialy. When you wanted low gear you fed power to one, higher
gear, to the other, full, to both.
Harlan Messinger
>On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 19:27:14 -0400, the following appeared
>in sci.skeptic, posted by Harlan Messinger
><h.mes...@comcast.net>:
>
>>Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>>1) Why does an "pure electric" vehicle need a transmission
>>>(and have the locomotive manufacturers been missing
>>>something obvious here)?
>>
>>Even in an electric vehicle, the power still has to be transmitted to
>>the wheels, doesn't it? Otherwise, you've got an electric motor
>>whirring away under the hood, and wheels that don't go anywhere.
>
>Ummm...by "transmission" I assumed "multi-geared
>transmission". If the only job of this "transmission" is to
>connect/disconnect the motor from the wheels, it isn't what
>I'd call a "transmission" at all; just a clutch.
It's still not clear to me how this is different when the motor is
gas-driven from when the motor is electric. A motor's a motor: it's a
thing that goes round and round. That motion needs to be transferred
to the wheels of the car. If it's a transmission in the case of a
gas-fueled engine, why would the same mechanism not be a transmission
in the case of an electric engine?
>And even
>this isn't needed, since the motor is perfectly happy at
>zero RPM with no load (unlike a normal IC engine), and can
>remain coupled to the driveline permanently; just apply
>electric current to drive away.
>
><snip>
--
Harlan Messinger
>"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
>news:edcanuc74bpfsc9na...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 19:27:14 -0400, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Harlan Messinger
>> <h.mes...@comcast.net>:
>>
>> >Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >>1) Why does an "pure electric" vehicle need a transmission
>> >>(and have the locomotive manufacturers been missing
>> >>something obvious here)?
>> >
>> >Even in an electric vehicle, the power still has to be transmitted to
>> >the wheels, doesn't it? Otherwise, you've got an electric motor
>> >whirring away under the hood, and wheels that don't go anywhere.
>>
>> Ummm...by "transmission" I assumed "multi-geared
>> transmission". If the only job of this "transmission" is to
>> connect/disconnect the motor from the wheels, it isn't what
>> I'd call a "transmission" at all; just a clutch. And even
>> this isn't needed, since the motor is perfectly happy at
>> zero RPM with no load (unlike a normal IC engine), and can
>> remain coupled to the driveline permanently; just apply
>> electric current to drive away.
>> - McNameless
>
>My truck uses a transaxle motor. There really is no transmission, although
>it is my understanding that one side of the transaxle motor has some sort of
>orbital gear thingy that acts as a differential.
>
>Don W.
Yes, many gas-powered cars have transaxles. The question was what a
car's being electric has to do with the nature of the mechanism used
for transmitting the power to the wheels.
Steve Spence
always require multiple gears, and in many applications are direct drive. no
transmission.
--
Steve Spence
Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter
& Discussion Boards:
http://www.green-trust.org
Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.dns2go.com/
ssp...@green-trust.org
"Harlan Messinger" <h.mes...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:qtqanu86aetr87ckv...@4ax.com...
Chris Torek
Harlan Messinger <h.mes...@comcast.net> writes:
>It's still not clear to me how this is different when the motor is
>gas-driven from when the motor is electric. A motor's a motor: it's a
Spoken like someone who has not built things using motors. :-)
Seriously, different motors have wildly different operational
characteristics. Gasoline motors (as found in cars) do something
very significantly different from electric motors: they put out
more torque at higher RPMs.
Twisting force -- torque -- is how you get going from a standing
start. For automobiles in the US, it is generally measured in
"foot-pounds": the force you would get if you put an N-pound weight[%]
on a 1-foot-long wrench connected to the axle you want to turn.
This is a unit of force[%]. "Horsepower", on the other hand, i
a unit of power -- like watts or joules-per-second -- and one
"horsepower" is defined as 550 foot-pounds per second.[$]
Any auto enthusiast should be able to tell you that each engine
design has a characteristic "power curve". That is, it produces
more or less torque and horsepower at different engine speeds.
You can vary the curve by changing the engine design, primarily
with the number of cylinders and total displacement, but all of
them share a curve that starts with low power and torque, which
then increases as the engine speeds up, and then decreases again
as the engine "tops out".
Electric motors behave very differently. In fact, in an ideal
electric motor, the power output is exactly the same as the
(electrical) power input. This implies that the torque is directly
proportional to the reciprocal of the motor's speed -- and this
in turn means the torque goes to infinity as the speed goes to
zero.
Real electric motors never have infinite torque, of course, but
they do put out maximum torque at minimum speeds, and the curve is
indeed a reciprocal function.
Thus:
>That motion needs to be transferred to the wheels of the car. If
>it's a transmission in the case of a gas-fueled engine, why would
>the same mechanism not be a transmission in the case of an electric
>engine?
No gearing-down is required to prevent the electric motor from
"stalling out". However, if one wants sudden, kick-in-the-pants
acceleration from an electric motor that is already turning at some
appreciable fraction of its top speed, the ability to gear it down
(so as to increase the torque) would help. As the previous poster
wrot:
>>And even this isn't needed, since the motor is perfectly happy at
>>zero RPM with no load (unlike a normal IC engine), and can
>>remain coupled to the driveline permanently; just apply
>>electric current to drive away.
Footnotes:
[%] The English unit "pound" can imply either force or mass. In
this case it is being used in its "force" form, which assumes the
N-pound weight it at the earth's surface, subject to the earth's
gravity.
[$] Actually, "horsepower" is another of those ill-defined English
units. According to our Perl script "units" (which does unit conversion
and is indispensible in making sure you got your dimensional analysis
right), we have:
# The horsepower is supposedly the power of one horse pulling. Obviously
# different people had different horses.
metrichorsepower 75 kilogram force meter / sec
electrichorsepower 746 W
boilerhorsepower 9809.50 W
waterhorsepower 746.043 W
brhorsepower 745.70 W
donkeypower 250 W
Here "force" is one G:
# constants and miscellaneous
pi 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288
c 2.99792458e8 m/sec
g 9.80665 m/sec2
au 1.49599e11 m
mole 6.022045e23
e 1.6020e-19 coul
abcoulomb 10 coul
force g
slug lb g sec2/ft
mercury 1.3157895 atm/m
hg mercury
torr mm hg
% 1|100
percent %
cg centigram
I have no idea why "boilerhorsepower" is so out-of-line with the
other different horses. :-)
--
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Wind River Systems (BSD engineering)
Salt Lake City, UT, USA Domain: to...@bsdi.com
http://67.40.109.61/torek/ (for the moment) I report spam to abuse@.
"nos...@elf.eng.bsdi.com" *is* my address (one of many actually).
Don Widders
The electric motor is such a different beast from a gas engine that it
doesn't need a transmission. When you feed it no current, it doesn't go, so
it doesn't need a clutch. An internal combustion engine will only operate
within a relatively narrow range of speed. The electric motor will operate
within a broad enough range of speed that a transmission is unnecessary.
Don W.
John
wrote:
>On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 14:38:23 -0700, Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com>
>wrote:
>
>>http://www.tilleyfoundation.com/vehicle.htm
>
> "The difference is you have no need for fuel and you do not have to
> stop the vehicle to charge it after driving. There is no pollution
> and you can cruise the highways at the same speed as any other
> vehicle."
<snip>
Now Bobby Allison is in on the act. He's one of the guest drivers for
the September 7 demo, and he's hyping this "new power source" on his
website.
Sad.
Duncan Wood
"Chris Torek" <nos...@elf.eng.bsdi.com> wrote in message
news:al3tec$jv6$1...@elf.eng.bsdi.com...
Only on a shunt wound DC motor. There are many different types & they all
have different curves
Harlan Messinger
Harry Conover
> On the dark and dreary 02 Sep 2002 Harlan Messinger
> <h.mes...@comcast.net> posted news:2ss7nu4mobfnklvtq0rpm6e70nf381ktih@
> 4ax.com:
>
> > Even in an electric vehicle, the power still has to be transmitted to
> > the wheels, doesn't it? Otherwise, you've got an electric motor
> > whirring away under the hood, and wheels that don't go anywhere.
> >
> >
>
> Unless the electric motor is attached directly to the wheel.
Literally true still rarely, if ever, actually done even in toys.
Put in simple terms, you almost always need an impedance matching
device, and this is what the geartrain usually accomplishes.
Harry C.
Harry Conover
I can't help but wonder if the folks at the "Tilley Foundation"
realize how much free advertising (?) they are receiving in this
newsgroup? :-)
Will somebody volunteer to send them a copy of the entire thread?
Harry C.
Bob Casanova
sci.skeptic, posted by "Don Widders"
<wid...@talkwithoutdifficulty.org>:
>"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
>news:edcanuc74bpfsc9na...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 19:27:14 -0400, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Harlan Messinger
>> <h.mes...@comcast.net>:
>>
>> >Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >>1) Why does an "pure electric" vehicle need a transmission
>> >>(and have the locomotive manufacturers been missing
>> >>something obvious here)?
>> >
>> >Even in an electric vehicle, the power still has to be transmitted to
>> >the wheels, doesn't it? Otherwise, you've got an electric motor
>> >whirring away under the hood, and wheels that don't go anywhere.
>>
>> Ummm...by "transmission" I assumed "multi-geared
>> transmission". If the only job of this "transmission" is to
>> connect/disconnect the motor from the wheels, it isn't what
>> I'd call a "transmission" at all; just a clutch. And even
>> this isn't needed, since the motor is perfectly happy at
>> zero RPM with no load (unlike a normal IC engine), and can
>> remain coupled to the driveline permanently; just apply
>> electric current to drive away.
>My truck uses a transaxle motor. There really is no transmission, although
>it is my understanding that one side of the transaxle motor has some sort of
>orbital gear thingy that acts as a differential.
Yeah, you'd still need a differential if both wheels on the
same axle are driven. And thanks for the confirmation about
the lack of need for a transmission.
Bob Casanova
>On the dark and dreary 03 Sep 2002 Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> posted
>news:32canuc6icu6qouoo...@4ax.com:
>
>> Interesting, especially since they aren't needed for
>> electric locomotives. Check out the torque characteristics
>>
>
> Oh, I didn't say they were needed, only that I've seen it. I saw one
>electric motor that was a planetary gear system. Two sets of electric
>drives essentialy. When you wanted low gear you fed power to one, higher
>gear, to the other, full, to both.
OK.
Bob Casanova
An electric motor can remain coupled to the wheels at all
times, since there's no need to keep the motor "running"
(i.e., rotating) when the vehicle is stopped. This is not
the case with an IC engine, since the running engine needs
to be uncoupled from the driveline (or connected through a
fluid coupling) when the vehicle is stopped. And the torque
characteristics of IC engines require multiple gearsets (or
the weird arrangement used by Buick back in the '50s, and
perhaps by some others) if both acceleration and engine RPM
at highway speeds are to be within acceptable limits. A
torque converter used with an automatic transmission helps,
but it doesn't eliminate the multiple-gearset requirement.
Duncan Wood
"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
Driving characteristics of locos though are some what unamenable to road use
:-)
Bob Casanova
sci.skeptic, posted by Chris Torek
<nos...@elf.eng.bsdi.com>:
Chris, thanks for going into more detail than I felt like
typing.
(BTW, is the Wind River Systems in your sig the same one
that IIRC handles Virtuoso? Just curious, since we've been
using this at work on a program I've been working on the
past couple of years.)
--
Bob C.
Bob Casanova
>OK, I get it! Thanks, everyone, for the explanations.
My pleasure.
But we seem to have gotten sidetracked; does *anyone* know
what this magical "TEV Device" energy source is supposed to
be?
Harlan Messinger
"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
> On Wed, 04 Sep 2002 09:00:00 -0400, the following appeared
> in sci.skeptic, posted by Harlan Messinger
> <h.mes...@comcast.net>:
>
> >OK, I get it! Thanks, everyone, for the explanations.
>
> My pleasure.
>
> But we seem to have gotten sidetracked; does *anyone* know
> what this magical "TEV Device" energy source is supposed to
> be?
The web site only discusses the great secrecy that needs to be maintained.
Harry Conover
> a transmission is defined by having 2 or more gears. electric motors don't
> always require multiple gears, and in many applications are direct drive. no
> transmission.
Sorry Steve, but a transmission is defined as a mechanical impedance
transformation device. It can consist of gears, pulleys and belts,
hydraulic or pneumatic force/power tranfer mechanisms or other
methods.
While an electric motor doesn't require a transmission, that is it can
operate on a 1:1 basis, this is rarely done in applications other than
fans, pumps, and similar devices presenting a load that is already a
good impedance match to that of the electric motor driving it.
In the case of vechicles, the load impedance presented by the wheels
is usually far too low for the camparable impedance at which an
electric motor likes to operate, hence some form of ratio device is
more often than not called for.
The advantage of a d.c. motor over that of an internal combusion
engine is that the electric motor is capable of significant torque are
near zero rotation speeds, while at the same time capable of high-rpm
operation. Unfortunately, this does not mean that it operates with
equal energy efficiency throught its entire rpm range. By matching
the mechanical impedance of the motor to that of the load, what you
are doing is simply maximizing the energy transfer efficiency
(kilowatts to force or torque) at the design center.
This is why diesel truck engines require complex, multi-ratio
transmissions with many ratios. Diesel engines operate efficiently
only over a limited range of rpm. Gas engines operate over a wider
rpm range, and require fewer gears. D.C. electric motors over a wider
range still, and hence can generally operate in a situation when they
have only one fixed gearing ratio, which in some cases (generally
those where the motor only operates at one fixed speed) is 1:1.
Harry C.
Duane C. Johnson
Bob Casanova wrote:
>
> "Don Widders" <wid...@talkwithoutdifficulty.org> wrote:
> > My truck uses a transaxle motor. There really is no
> > transmission, although it is my understanding that
> > one side of the transaxle motor has some sort of
> > orbital gear thingy that acts as a differential.
> Yeah, you'd still need a differential if both wheels on the
> same axle are driven. And thanks for the confirmation about
> the lack of need for a transmission.
There is another arrangement also.
If each wheel has a motor then no differential is required.
If two, or more, motors are used they can be switched
in series and parallel combinations. This is effectively
an electrical version of a transmission.
Several electric cars have done this.
> Bob C.
Duane
--
Home of the $35 LED solar tracker.
http://www.redrok.com/electron.htm#led3
CUL8ER \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ Receiver
Powered by\ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ [*]
Thermonuclear \ \Solar\Energy\from the Sun \ /////|
Energy(the Sun) \ \ \ \ \\ \ / / /\/ / /|
\ \ \ \ \ /\ / \/ / / / |
WA0VBE \ \ \ \ / /\ \/ / / \/ /|
Ziggy \ \ \/ / / \ \/ \/ /\ |
\ / \ \/ / /\ \\ / \ / / |
"Red Rock Energy" === ===\ / \ / \ === \ / ===
Duane C. Johnson, Designer=== === \ \ === / |
1825 Florence St Mirrors,Heliostats,Controls & Mounts|
White Bear Lake, Minnesota \ \ / |
USA 55110-3364 \ \ |
(651)635-5O65 work \ \ / |
(651)426-4766 home \ \ |
(413)556-659O Fax copyright \ / |
(651)583-2O62 Red Rock Energy Site (C)980907 ===\ |
red...@redrok.com (my primary email: address) \ |
red...@hotmail.com (Hotmail address) \ |
duane....@unisys.com (Unisys address) \ |
http://www.redrok.com/index.htm (My New Web site) \|
These are my opinions, and not that of Unisys Corp. ===
daestrom
"Duncan Wood" <free...@dmx512.co.uk> wrote in message
news:al5tek$tkd$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
<snip >
>
> Driving characteristics of locos though are some what unamenable to road
use
> :-)
>
Unless you have about 30 'trailers' weighing in at about 60 000 lbs each ;-)
C. Joseph Long
it had 65% of its weight on the rear wheels. The original version
(pre-Super Beetle), also, had front suspension by pure trailing arms, so
neither end developed very much side force. The Porsche 356, which had
essentially the same suspension with substantially more power, was known
for its ability to surprise its drivers, unpleasantly. Granted, the
beetle handled well in "some conditions" but the transition to not
handling well was abrupt and gave little warning. I'm not particularly
against rear-engined cars (the current Porsche 911 is one such), but
they do have particular engineering problems that have to be addressed.
Actually, the Tilley that started this thread is likely to be very safe,
simply because it won't go very fast, if at all.news:rERc9.30830$NV6.9...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> the vw beetle (original) was rear engine, and that handled well in
some
> conditions.
>
> --
> Steve Spence
> Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter
> & Discussion Boards:
> http://www.green-trust.org
> Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.dns2go.com/
> ssp...@green-trust.org
> news:RAOc9.69194$Xa.35...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> <snip>
> > Note that the DeLorean is not mid-engined; the engine is hung out
behind
> > the axle, for reasons nobody could really figure out at the time.
The
> > quoted 35f/65r weight distribution is plausible (but low) if they've
> > replaced the engine with a motor, but cars like that really want to
> > become front-engined, often at embarassing times.
> > Sounds like a waste of a perfectly good DeLorean, to me.
> > Maybe we need a newsgroup of the form sci.engr.bogus, for discussion
of
> > things like this and the three-wheel Dale of a couple of decades
ago,
> > which was claimed to turn right angles without tipping over. Of
course,
> > the radius of the turn wasn't specified.
> > Joe
> >
> >
>
>
Duane C. Johnson
Harry Conover <hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Steve Spence" <ssp...@webconx.com> wrote:
> > a transmission is defined by having 2 or more gears.
> > electric motors don't always require multiple gears,
> > and in many applications are direct drive. no
> > transmission.
> Sorry Steve, but a transmission is defined as a
> mechanical impedance transformation device. It can
> consist of gears, pulleys and belts, hydraulic or
> pneumatic force/power tranfer mechanisms or other
> methods.
You are quite correct.
However, in this context, a transmission is commonly
understood to mean a device that can change the
impedance ratios. Change gears if you will.
> While an electric motor doesn't require a transmission,
> that is it can operate on a 1:1 basis, this is rarely
> done in applications other than fans, pumps, and
> similar devices presenting a load that is already a
> good impedance match to that of the electric motor
> driving it.
> In the case of vechicles, the load impedance presented
> by the wheels is usually far too low for the camparable
> impedance at which an electric motor likes to operate,
> hence some form of ratio device is more often than not
> called for.
Yes, most motor drives have some kind gear reducer so
the the motor can run at relatively high speed.
> The advantage of a d.c. motor over that of an internal
> combusion engine is that the electric motor is capable
> of significant torque are near zero rotation speeds,
> while at the same time capable of high-rpm operation.
> Unfortunately, this does not mean that it operates with
> equal energy efficiency throught its entire rpm range.
> By matching the mechanical impedance of the motor to
> that of the load, what you are doing is simply
> maximizing the energy transfer efficiency (kilowatts to
> force or torque) at the design center.
> This is why diesel truck engines require complex,
> multi-ratio transmissions with many ratios. Diesel
> engines operate efficiently only over a limited range of
> rpm. Gas engines operate over a wider rpm range, and
> require fewer gears. D.C. electric motors over a wider
> range still, and hence can generally operate in a
> situation when they have only one fixed gearing ratio,
> which in some cases (generally those where the motor
> only operates at one fixed speed) is 1:1.
> Harry C.
Duane
Duane C. Johnson
Bob Casanova wrote:
> But we seem to have gotten sidetracked; does *anyone* know
> what this magical "TEV Device" energy source is supposed to
> be?
Yes, the money of the gullible.
> Bob C.
Don Widders
news:3D76819B...@redrok.com...
> Hi Bob,
>
> Bob Casanova wrote:
> >
> > "Don Widders" <wid...@talkwithoutdifficulty.org> wrote:
>
> > > My truck uses a transaxle motor. There really is no
> > > transmission, although it is my understanding that
> > > one side of the transaxle motor has some sort of
> > > orbital gear thingy that acts as a differential.
>
> > Yeah, you'd still need a differential if both wheels on the
> > same axle are driven. And thanks for the confirmation about
> > the lack of need for a transmission.
>
> There is another arrangement also.
> If each wheel has a motor then no differential is required.
>
> If two, or more, motors are used they can be switched
> in series and parallel combinations. This is effectively
> an electrical version of a transmission.
>
> Several electric cars have done this.
>
> > Bob C.
>
> Duane
>
exist!) It seems to me this would only double the already high voltage
requirement.
Are you saying the motors operate in parallel from a stop (or at low speed)
because high current is required to start the vehicle moving? Why would you
want to series the motors at high speed? I just don't get that.
As a point of reference, my truck uses a 300 volt battery (twenty five 12
volt batteries in series.)
Don W.
John
>I can't help but wonder if the folks at the "Tilley Foundation"
>realize how much free advertising (?) they are receiving in this
>newsgroup? :-)
>
>Will somebody volunteer to send them a copy of the entire thread?
I understand that a bunch of the local Nashville TV stations have been
clued in on this event, and are planning "proper" coverage guided by
several university professors and members of a Tennessee skeptics
organization.
Don Lancaster
There are many different variations of motor windings. Serial, parallel,
compound, switched ruluctance, etc... Details on my website.
Each produces a different speed torque characteristic.
In general, the purpose of a transmission is to act as a torque
converter, extending and/or optimizing the characteristic range of any
particular motor.
Relying on 1:1 torque is CERTAIN to cripple the vehicle performance.
An electric auto without a transmission is as absurd as a drill press
without one.
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
voice: (928)428-4073 email: d...@tinaja.com fax 847-574-1462
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Don Lancaster
Skeptics almost universally come in second in media coverage.
Duane C. Johnson
The best example was an electric race car called "Snow White".
It connected the motors in series for first gear to get the
current down to a manageable level because the motors are
turning at a relatively low rpm.
Parallel for second gear for high acceleration.
Series for third gear for economy at top speed.
As I recall they used 2 Advanced Electric 10" motors
with a 250VDC battery or so.
> Why would you want to series the motors at high speed?
> I just don't get that.
The problem was that 250VDC was quite destructive of the
motors. They had to replace the brushes often. The picture
I saw showed much arching but this was a race care.
In a commuter car with more appropriate operating voltages
the series connection reduces the running current. This
allows the power controller to drive with wider PWM pulses
while cruising.
This is kind of equivalent to the conventional ICE engine
in fifth gear which reduces the ICE rpm and allows a heavier
combustion fuel mix. This improves the ICE efficiency.
Same thing for the direct drive, with fixed gearing, electric.
The lower leak current with a wider PWM is more efficient.
When shifted into passing second parallel mode high
acceleration is obtained.
> As a point of reference, my truck uses a 300 volt battery
> (twenty five 12 volt batteries in series.)
Neat. Do you have pictures?
While were on the subject of EV. Here is my concept
as not completed as it needs more work for an alternate
power controller I call the "BatPack". See:
http://www.redrok.com/ev.htm
I wish I had time to perfect the switches. They have a
nasty habit of blowing the MOSFETs.
However when it works it works well.
> Don W.
Duke McMullan N5GAX
news:3D773CC4...@tinaja.com...
> Skeptics almost universally come in second in media coverage.
Regrettably true.
It's a result, I think, of most newsies being fundamentally in the
entertainment business. A pity, but there it is . . . and those folks are
FAR too bright and too perceptive not to know it -- but they don't seem to
like to talk about it much.
d
--
New Mexico: Protecting Arizona from Texas since 1912!
Duke McMullan n5gax nss13429rl(fe) (505)255-4642 mtm...@qwest.net
Ken Smith
Don Widders <wid...@talkwithoutdifficulty.org> wrote:
[....]
>I've never seen electric vehicle motors in series (not to say it doesn't
>exist!) It seems to me this would only double the already high voltage
>requirement.
Some street cars put the motors in series at low speeds. This reduces the
current during starting.
--
--
kens...@rahul.net forging knowledge
MasterCougar
news:7ce4e226.0209...@posting.google.com:
> I can't help but wonder if the folks at the "Tilley Foundation"
> realize how much free advertising (?) they are receiving in this
> newsgroup? :-)
>
>
You mean, THESE newsgroups :-) And it's all negative advertising.
--
Marc,
This is where I would normally put a funny sig, but now I just don't have
it in me.
Ken Smith
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
[....]
>1) Why does an "pure electric" vehicle need a transmission
>(and have the locomotive manufacturers been missing
>something obvious here)?
No, they have 2 considerations that are different from what car makers
care about.
1) A locomotive is supposed to be heavy. They need the weight to get
enough traction. In cars you want as little weight as posible. A smaller
and lighter motor can be used with a gear box.
2) At low speeds, such as stop and go traffic, too much of the input
power ends up in I2R losses in the motors windings. At high speeds, too
much of the power ends up as windage and core losses. There is a band of
speeds you would like to keep the motor within whether you are in slow
traffic of at freeway speeds.
Don Widders
> Don Widders wrote:
OK, Duane and Ken, putting two motors in series effectively doubles the
impedance and therefore reduces current. When high power is not required,
this would be a better match than driving with very narrow pulses I suppose.
Duane, it seems to me that switching the batteries in and out (as in your
BatPack) is a better idea except that you might have uneven discharge of the
batteries. When I read your post about switching motors between series and
parallel I thought to myself that switching two batteries between series and
parallel seems more sensible to me. Anyway, I don't think the Ford Electric
Ranger uses either. I would expect any automotive electric motor (running
motor) to be an AC motor because at high power electronic commutation makes
a lot of sense. Are they actually switching AC motors between 'parallel'
and 'series'? That sounds very complicated! My truck motor is an AC motor.
I love driving the E-Ranger. I've been petitioning Ford to sell me the
vehicle at the end of the lease and they won't do it! This seems crazy.
I've told them I'll sign whatever waiver saying that I understand the truck
will not be maintained or supported by Ford in any way, but it seems the
plan for all the Electric Rangers is to send them to Europe as parts. Yup,
that's what I heard! Oh well.
Don W.
Bob Casanova
sci.skeptic, posted by "Duncan Wood"
<free...@dmx512.co.uk>:
>
>"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
>news:mmtcnuoftshk51jik...@4ax.com...
>> On 4 Sep 2002 01:30:00 GMT, the following appeared in
>> sci.skeptic, posted by MasterCougar
>> <master...@snotmail.com>:
>>
>> >On the dark and dreary 03 Sep 2002 Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> posted
>> >news:32canuc6icu6qouoo...@4ax.com:
>> >
>> >> Interesting, especially since they aren't needed for
>> >> electric locomotives. Check out the torque characteristics
>> >>
>> >
>> > Oh, I didn't say they were needed, only that I've seen it. I saw one
>> >electric motor that was a planetary gear system. Two sets of electric
>> >drives essentialy. When you wanted low gear you fed power to one, higher
>> >gear, to the other, full, to both.
>>
>> OK.
>Driving characteristics of locos though are some what unamenable to road use
>:-)
Particularly if violent avoidance maneuvers become
necessary... ;-)
Bob Casanova
>
>"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
>news:aiucnucar4a73klv3...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 04 Sep 2002 09:00:00 -0400, the following appeared
>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Harlan Messinger
>> <h.mes...@comcast.net>:
>>
>> >OK, I get it! Thanks, everyone, for the explanations.
>>
>> My pleasure.
>>
>> But we seem to have gotten sidetracked; does *anyone* know
>> what this magical "TEV Device" energy source is supposed to
>> be?
>
>The web site only discusses the great secrecy that needs to be maintained.
Yeah, I looked at it. "Great secrecy" indeed...
Bob Casanova
in sci.skeptic, posted by "Duane C. Johnson"
<red...@redrok.com>:
>Hi Bob,
>
>Bob Casanova wrote:
>>
>> "Don Widders" <wid...@talkwithoutdifficulty.org> wrote:
>
>> > My truck uses a transaxle motor. There really is no
>> > transmission, although it is my understanding that
>> > one side of the transaxle motor has some sort of
>> > orbital gear thingy that acts as a differential.
>
>> Yeah, you'd still need a differential if both wheels on the
>> same axle are driven. And thanks for the confirmation about
>> the lack of need for a transmission.
>
>There is another arrangement also.
>If each wheel has a motor then no differential is required.
Sounds good to me; the differential action would be
accomplished by the power delivered to each wheel, right?
>If two, or more, motors are used they can be switched
>in series and parallel combinations. This is effectively
>an electrical version of a transmission.
>
>Several electric cars have done this.
>
>> Bob C.
>
>Duane
--
Bob C.
Bob Casanova
in sci.skeptic, posted by "Duane C. Johnson"
<red...@redrok.com>:
>Hi Bob;
>
>Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> But we seem to have gotten sidetracked; does *anyone* know
>> what this magical "TEV Device" energy source is supposed to
>> be?
>
>Yes, the money of the gullible.
By George, I think you've *got* it! ;-)
Bob Casanova
sci.skeptic, posted by Ken Smith <kens...@rahul.net>:
Makes sense; thanks.
Duane C. Johnson
Don Widders wrote:
> OK, Duane and Ken, putting two motors in series effectively
> doubles the impedance and therefore reduces current.
Actually the impedance for a given rpm is 4 times higher
for series over parallel.
> When high power is not required, this would be a better match
> than driving with very narrow pulses I suppose.
> Duane, it seems to me that switching the batteries in and out
> (as in your BatPack) is a better idea except that you might
> have uneven discharge of the batteries.
Actually the discharge is more even than a standard battery
string. The controller is smart about holding the charges
to the same depth of discharge even with BatPacks of
differing capacity.
The controller adds or subtracts packs to maintain the required
average number of packs in series. The determination of whether
to add, subtract, or maintain the current number of packs is
done at the rate of 100 times decisions per second.
1. If it is determined that a pack is to be added to the
string the controller checks the voltage of all the packs.
Which ever pack has the maximum
voltage is the one that will be added to the string.
2. If it's determined that a pack is to be subtracted from the
string the controller checks the voltage of all the packs.
Which ever pack has the minimum voltage is the one that will
be removed from the string.
3. Of course if no change in the number of packs is required
then keep the status quo.
You might ask why I check all the packs when looking for the
maximum or minimum voltage pack? Won't some of the packs be
connected to the string while others are disconnected?
Will the determination of which pack status is to be changed
be affected the current status?
The answer is no. When the controller is attempting to add a
pack to the string it will be looking for the pack that is
currently the highest voltage. This will not be any of the
packs that are currently connected to the string as they will
be under load and consequently be low in voltage.
Conversely, when the controller is attempting to remove a
pack from the string it will be looking for the pack that is
currently the lowest voltage. This will not be any of the
packs that are currently disconnected from the string as
they will not be under load and consequently be high in voltage.
This process of adding the strongest and removing the weakest
pack from the string has the effect of loading all the packs
in a manner that the charge will be evenly removed from all
packs. Note that some packs may have lower total charged
capacity than others.
> When I read your post about switching motors between series
> and parallel I thought to myself that switching two batteries
> between series and parallel seems more sensible to me.
Thanks, I think so.
Even if you don't use my BatPack controller you can still use
a PWM output stage.
> Anyway, I don't think the Ford Electric Ranger uses either.
> I would expect any automotive electric motor (running motor)
> to be an AC motor because at high power electronic commutation
> makes a lot of sense.
I agree.
However, all AC drive electronics that I have seen are
outrageously expensive. Even though the motors are cheap.
> Are they actually switching AC motors between 'parallel'
> and 'series'? That sounds very complicated!
> My truck motor is an AC motor.
None that I have heard of.
> I love driving the E-Ranger. I've been petitioning Ford to
> sell me the vehicle at the end of the lease and they won't
> do it! This seems crazy. I've told them I'll sign whatever
> waiver saying that I understand the truck will not be
> maintained or supported by Ford in any way, but it seems the
> plan for all the Electric Rangers is to send them to Europe
> as parts. Yup, that's what I heard! Oh well.
Same thing with the EV1. ( I understand that there are actually
about 3 that are privately owned.)
Steve Spence
bad publicity.
--
Steve Spence
Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter
& Discussion Boards:
http://www.green-trust.org
Renewable Energy Pages - http://www.webconx.dns2go.com/
ssp...@green-trust.org
"MasterCougar" <master...@snotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns92808609857...@130.133.1.4...
Don Lancaster
Sadly, there is no such thing as negative advertising.
Don Lancaster
What's to avoid?
Locomotives rarely place second, except with each other.
WTH
> <snip>
>
> Now Bobby Allison is in on the act. He's one of the guest drivers for
> the September 7 demo, and he's hyping this "new power source" on his
> website.
>
> http://www.bobbyallison.com/
>
> Sad.
I hope Allison has a good lawyer; he'll need it when the investor
lawsuits start flying.
What amuses me about Tilley's demo is that he's promoting -the wrong
invention-! Here's a guy who claims to have created a device that
produces enormous, endless amounts of free electricity, and he seems
to think that the most useful application for it will be in electric
vehicles. It's like creating a universal antibiotic and marketing it
strictly as a cure for athlete's foot.
Note that Tilley claims that his workshop runs on another "free
energy" device that he invented. So why isn't he showing this amazing
device to the press on Sept. 7? Does he somehow think it's less
important than demoing an electric car?
I hope someone in the press will have the presence of mind to point
out this strange contradiction to Tilley. It remains to be seen if
he's just deluded (e.g. Tom Bearden) or if he's an out-and-out fraud
(e.g. Dennis Lee).
WTH
daestrom
> There are many different variations of motor windings. Serial, parallel,
> compound, switched ruluctance, etc... Details on my website.
>
> Each produces a different speed torque characteristic.
>
> In general, the purpose of a transmission is to act as a torque
> converter, extending and/or optimizing the characteristic range of any
> particular motor.
>
> Relying on 1:1 torque is CERTAIN to cripple the vehicle performance.
>
> An electric auto without a transmission is as absurd as a drill press
> without one.
>
But modern units could use computer-controlled solid-state motor
controllers. These change the characturistics of the motor by modulating
armature/field power. This eliminates the need for a transmission and
allows for easy adaptation to a variety of driving conditions.
Every see a drill-press that uses solid-state motor control? They DO have
such things.
daestrom
Don Widders
It's outrageously inconvenient to frequently replace brushes. Electronic
commutation is no more expensive than switching batteries in and out. It's
all just a matter of switching. I haven't read up on Mr. Lancaster's 'Magic
Sinewaves', but from what little I saw, it looks to me like AC motor drives
are about to undergo a substantial reduction in price and increase in
quality.
Duane, I enjoyed your website! I wonder if your workbench is as messy as
mine? Naahhh, I'm sure not. I tell the kids if the ability to organize was
a part of my genetic blueprint I would have accomplished something.
Don W.
Don Widders
news:rqXd9.4159$xm.11...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> >
> > There are many different variations of motor windings. Serial, parallel,
> > compound, switched ruluctance, etc... Details on my website.
> >
> > Each produces a different speed torque characteristic.
> >
> > In general, the purpose of a transmission is to act as a torque
> > converter, extending and/or optimizing the characteristic range of any
> > particular motor.
> >
> > Relying on 1:1 torque is CERTAIN to cripple the vehicle performance.
> >
> > An electric auto without a transmission is as absurd as a drill press
> > without one.
> >
performance and I considered electricity to be as poor a fuel choice for
automotive applications as it is for cooking or water heating. The
performance turned out to be quite acceptable and my fuel cost per mile is
less than my Dodge Dynasty!
The E-Ranger is driven directly by the electric motor. There is only one
situation where I found this to be a disadvantage. Once I told the truck to
move forward and over a small curb against which the front tires were
already resting. The truck flat refused to do it. Each time it moved a
little forward, the computer saw how much current it was shoving into the
motor and it would shut down the motor for a moment causing the truck to
sort of 'oscillate' back and forth. I backed about a foot away from the
curb so the truck had a little velocity when it reached the curb and we went
up and over no problem. From a dead stop, the motor just didn't want to
lift the front end of the truck straight up about 4 inches. Other than that
one small matter, it's certainly not a crippled vehicle. OH, just one other
thing -- it doesn't burn rubber.
John
"technical problems".
From http://www.greaterthings.com/News/Tilley/newstuff/index.html
::9:20 am. Tilley was driving 95 around a corner and he heard something
::pop. The chasis/bearings are going out. The suspension on the car is
::not equipped to handle this kind of track. It puts too much pressure
::on the bearings. "The car is not going to move again today." Race
::cars have a special kind of suspension to handle tracks at high speed,
::so it won't put a bind on the bearings. The curves are banked.
::Regular cars not designed to handle that -- even the DeLorean.
::"It's a street car, even though it looks like a race car." The car is
::a 1981. It's just too much for it. The batteries stayed up, kept it
::charged.
95 mph, on a corner built for twice that! And it's "too much" for the
wheel bearings. Couldn't they have though of something better?
And it looks like they were using voltage alone as a measure of the
charge state of the batteries.
No doubt they'll spin this as some sort of resounding success, and the
Tilley Electric Vehicle will takes its rightful place among other
quackery like the Lutec 1000, the Jasker Power System, the Newman
Energy Machine, the Hummingbird motor, the MEG, and a host of others.
It was Big Oil! Big Oil, I tell you! They sabotaged the wheel
bearing by shooting it with a microwave weapon fired from a Black
Helicopter. Or was it from the grassy knoll?
Bob Casanova
in sci.skeptic, posted by Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com>:
>Bob Casanova wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 4 Sep 2002 22:22:13 +0100, the following appeared in
>> sci.skeptic, posted by "Duncan Wood"
>> <free...@dmx512.co.uk>:
<snip>
>> >Driving characteristics of locos though are some what unamenable to road use
>> >:-)
>> Particularly if violent avoidance maneuvers become
>> necessary... ;-)
>What's to avoid?
>Locomotives rarely place second, except with each other.
...or when arguing right-of-way with the gasoline tank truck
at the road crossing. In that case, *both* place second.
Don Lancaster
Again, Newman already had dibs on the rear axle ratio being wrong, so
they had to pick something else.
Don Widders
news:3d7a31a6....@netnews.att.net...
I corresponded with the Allison family and one of Tilley's henchmen (Doug
Littlefield) sent me a threatening email. Someone in Mr. Allison's group
told me Bobby Allison had agreed to "keep quiet" if he noticed something
fishy. From their tone, this 'bearing problem' must come as quite a relief
to Bobby Allison. I spoke with the contact yesterday and at that point it
appeared that Allison was going to actually drive the car, so I believe
their intention (both the Tilley group and Allison) was to drive it.
My guess would be that Tilley realized Bobby Allison was just TOO high
profile for what he was trying to pull off, or maybe there was someone at
the Speedway that scared Tilley. Whatever the case, I'm happy with the
results. Bobby Allison is an honorable man and he was reluctant about this
event.
This involvement helped me realize how extraordinarily evil these people
are. It's easy to look at these scams and shake your head, but in some ways
the scammers are worse than bank robbers. The bank robber goes into the
bank and people can see what he's doing, sort of like 'straight-up
dishonesty'. There is nothing straight-up or honest about the scammer.
Pure dishonest dishonesty.
Regarding the 'bearing problem', I'd like someone to analyze the excuse.
Pace cars do go around the track at low speed and they don't have a special
suspension, but they don't go around the track all day long. How feasible
is the bearing excuse?
Don W.
Don Lancaster
Graham Cowan
Not at all.
If 95 mph was what did it,
and it was a known problem,
the solution was simply to keep it under 65.
It means little for an EV to go 95 mph for a few seconds.
What would have meant much, what was promised,
and what did not show,
was one that could go 60 mph for 5 hours nonstop.
--- Graham Cowan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html --
a good way for cars to gain nuclear cachet
Duncan Wood
that's a bit of a current point this side of the pond
Don Widders
"Graham Cowan" <gco...@eagle.ca> wrote in message
news:3D7A6C37...@eagle.ca...
> Don Widders wrote:
> >
<snip>
> >
> > Regarding the 'bearing problem', I'd like someone to analyze the excuse.
> > Pace cars do go around the track at low speed and they don't have a
special
> > suspension, but they don't go around the track all day long. How
feasible
> > is the bearing excuse?
>
> Not at all.
>
> If 95 mph was what did it,
> and it was a known problem,
> the solution was simply to keep it under 65.
> It means little for an EV to go 95 mph for a few seconds.
> What would have meant much, what was promised,
> and what did not show,
> was one that could go 60 mph for 5 hours nonstop.
>
>
> --- Graham Cowan
> http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html --
> a good way for cars to gain nuclear cachet
I think they're saying that the car wasn't going FAST enough for the slope
of the banks and that caused too much stress on the bearings.
One would think if Carl Tilley is some sort of genius he could have figured
this out before renting the Nashville Speedway for a Saturday!
Don W.
John
<wid...@talkwithoutdifficulty.org> wrote:
>I think they're saying that the car wasn't going FAST enough for the slope
>of the banks and that caused too much stress on the bearings.
The Nashville Superspeedway has 14 degree banks on turns that are
about 600 feet in radius. This translates to a "zero lateral g" speed
of about 47 miles per hour. The wheelbearing excuse just doesn't
wash.
>One would think if Carl Tilley is some sort of genius he could have figured
>this out before renting the Nashville Speedway for a Saturday!
Don't think it wasn't planned (or hoped for). (And did anyone verify
that a wheel bearing really died, anyway?) This is precisely why he
unveiled his "perpetual charger" wrapped in a Delorean on a racetrack.
There wouldn't be enough ancillary things to go wrong if the device
was sitting alone on a table hooked up to input and output power
meters.
Tilley got his fifteen minutes of fame, now it's time to go after the
"investors". I'm sure the Tilley camp is considering this a success.
And I doubt if he'll ever bother trying another run at the track.
Don Widders
Invention May Bend Rules Of Physics
Is it possible? Could someone with no practical scientific training make a
machine that solves the energy crisis? Skeptics would say no, but
NewsChannel 5's Nick Beres spoke with two men who say they've developed a
new engine that defies the law of physics.
Carl Tilley and Robert Kibbey say they've developed a new power source.
"We are generating more electricity than we're using," Kibbey said about
their invention.
Skeptics will tell you that's impossible, but Tilley and Kibbey said the
engine uses no gas, propane, diesel, wind or solar energy, and can generate
30-thousand watts of electricity an hour.
"We're bending the laws of physics. We're just more efficient recycling
energy that disappears into the air," Kibbey said.
NewsChannel 5 invited Rellon Maxwell, an electrical engineer, to join us for
the demonstration of the invention.
Batteries kick start the engine. They send out 16 amps.
The engine then powers two television sets plus a big generator.
The engine sends 20 amps back to the batteries.
It should be less power--not more.
Maxwell said he's never seen anything like it in his 40 years in the
business.
Tilley and Kibbey are not trained scientists. They said that helped them
think outside the box.
"Edison, Einstein didn't finish high school and Goodyear got vulcanized
rubber by burning it," Kibbey said.
They've kept their invention a secret until now.
Other scientists will certainly want to see the engine.
Tilley and Kibbey welcome the scrutiny.
They say their invention works and has the power to change the world.
Tilley and Kibbey said their invention can power a house, or even a car
without an external source of energy.
Both men said more testing is needed.
But, if what they says is true, the engine would save consumers thousands
and thousands of dollars.
The Tennessee Valley Authority has already inquired about the invention.
http://www.newschannel5.com/news/0106/12/invent.html
Don Lancaster
I like their "amps of power" part.
Sort of sets the tone for the rest.
See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf
Also http://www.tinaja.com/glib/bashpseu.pdf
Cryoruggie
are too sophisticated and jaded to even think that there might be something
new under the sun.
Where's your sense of "maybe"? ( Of course, I said a laser would never
have a use, since it dissipated too much heat to be an effective death ray.
And I was hoping Cold Fusion wasn't a scam too...)
"Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message
news:3D7AA7CA...@tinaja.com...
Josh Halpern
Cryoruggie wrote:
> You know, you guys strike me as a bunch of bitter mentally-old men who
> are too sophisticated and jaded to even think that there might be something
> new under the sun.
> Where's your sense of "maybe"? ( Of course, I said a laser would never
> have a use, since it dissipated too much heat to be an effective death ray.
You carry the power supply, I'll lug the laser head
josh halpern
Don Widders
paradigms that are real. I'm willing to accept the probability that the
laws of thermodynamics will not be broken within my lifetime. If by chance
the laws of thermodynamics are broken within my lifetime there will be a
reasonable explanation and it will certainly be published in scientific
journals. There will be no conspiracy by the oil companies to suppress the
technology, and you'll be able to make practical use of the technology in
short order.
On the other hand, I'm sad to say there ARE a lot of fraudsters and scam
artists about taking money from people who probably need to have their money
taken. Unfortunately, they also may sully the names of legendary people and
"confuse" people with less than acutely analytical minds. These fraudsters
and scam artists are no better than the very worst of criminals and if it
makes me seem like a bitter, mentally-old man to expose such criminals, then
I'll accept that tag.
Don W.
"Cryoruggie" <em...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:iwye9.3084$1C2.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Don Lancaster
>
> You know, you guys strike me as a bunch of bitter mentally-old men who
> are too sophisticated and jaded to even think that there might be something
> new under the sun.
> Where's your sense of "maybe"?
Maybe they made beginning ee student classic blunder 001-A, that of
using cheap meters on strange waveforms.
Just maybe.
Or just maybe they never got that far.
One or the other.
See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf and
TruthAndReason
> I like their "amps of power" part.
> Sort of sets the tone for the rest.
Yup. Just goes to show you that just about anyone who doesn't work for he
automobile industry can produce an electric car.
Don Lancaster
A slashdot poster inadvertently came up with an ideal explanation:
ELECTROCITY !!!!!
None of Your Business
<wid...@talkwithoutdifficulty.org> writes:
>There will be no conspiracy by the oil companies to suppress the
>technology, and you'll be able to make practical use of the technology in
>short order.
And you have proof of this?
You think the military/industrial/Bankster complex will just roll up their
tents and go home from the middle east, Afghanistan, and the Caspian?
Ahahahahahahahahahaha.
JW
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force!
Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
--- George Washington
"That's all very nice Mr. Tesla but where do we put the meter?"
J.P. Morgan
Don Lancaster
>
> Cryoruggie wrote:
> >
> > You know, you guys strike me as a bunch of bitter mentally-old men who
> > are too sophisticated and jaded to even think that there might be something
> > new under the sun.
> > Where's your sense of "maybe"?
Assign probabilities:
Is this ...
(A) Yet another in a never ending series of bungling scamming
incompetents whose theories and labwork have clearly been shown to be
"not even wrong".
OR...
(B) Is this a genuine and stunning Nobel class scientific breakthrough
by a credible researcher who has gone monumentally out of their way to
create the illusion of their being yet another in a never ending series
of bungling scamming incompetents whose theories and labwork have
clearly been shown to be "not even wrong".
If (B), please clarify their motivation in doing so.
What you call "maybe", I call "ain't gonna happen".
The whole purpose of legitimate research is to eliminate the "ain't
gonna happens" early in the game before time and money is blown on them.
I really like the word "electrocity".
It definitely applies.
More at http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf and
http://www.tinaja.com/h2gas01.asp
And http://www.tinaja.com/glib/bashpseu.pdf
Harry Conover
> My guess would be that Tilley realized Bobby Allison was just TOO high
> profile for what he was trying to pull off, or maybe there was someone at
> the Speedway that scared Tilley. Whatever the case, I'm happy with the
> results. Bobby Allison is an honorable man and he was reluctant about this
> event.
Don, I would agree with you, except for the fact that I once was
convinced that Ed McMahon was an honest man, but the historical
evidence that he never fails to become involved with evil people
focused on scamming the most vulnerable and near destitute members of
the public has taught me otherwise.
> This involvement helped me realize how extraordinarily evil these people
> are. It's easy to look at these scams and shake your head, but in some ways
> the scammers are worse than bank robbers. The bank robber goes into the
> bank and people can see what he's doing, sort of like 'straight-up
> dishonesty'. There is nothing straight-up or honest about the scammer.
> Pure dishonest dishonesty.
Actuallly, I place these people on higher moral ground than would I
say, Ed McMahon. Ed McMahon scams people that don't know any better,
trust him personally, and can't really afford to lose the money he
scams from them.
By contrast, people like this Tilley Foundation are attempting to scam
people who'se dream is to obtain something for nothing, who are too
stupid to realize that in technology you cannot get something for
nothing. Many of Tilley's target victims appear to be dilettantes with
an affluence resulting from an excess of unearned income (similar to
the trust fund idiots that infest the luxury resort islands).
There are lots of evil people in this world, but I'd compare the
Tilley Foundation with rascals and jewel theives. I reserve the 'evil'
label for the legion of faith healers and corrupt tel-evangelists who
infest the late-night cable TV channel, and suck the very life-essence
from the poor, ignorant, souls who go without the essentials of life
to fund these evil bastards!
> Regarding the 'bearing problem', I'd like someone to analyze the excuse.
What on earth for? The effort would be better spent in publicizing
the 'free energy/perpetual motion SCAM that the Tulley Foundation is
attempting to exploit. I realize that the FTC, SEC and God know what
other state and federal agencies already have files on Tilley, but
publicizing how silly this scam actually is could help protect the
ignorant (even if affluent) from victimization. (We have to protect
these people, because the scams detract from the truly beneficial
foundation work that some of these do. The problem is that many people
not educated in the sciences simply cannot distinguish the silly claim
of benefits of wearing a magnetic or ionized bracelet from real
research having an enormous potential for real benefits to mankind.
Harry C.
p.s., Don, how many people active in this newsgroup do you believe
take the Tilley crap seriously? J.W. doesn't count!
None of Your Business
(Harry Conover) writes:
>Harry C.
>
>p.s., Don, how many people active in this newsgroup do you believe
>take the Tilley crap seriously? J.W. doesn't count!
Fuck off CON man.
You peddle more lies here than anyone. I haven't made one word of comment about
Tilley.
I have repeatedly, as the record will show, only stated belief and backed one
man's work that can be considered suspect and has yet to be disproven since he
is dead.
You and all your other slippery slope arguing asshole friends here have done
everything in your power to throw me in with every other boarderline unproven
or outright scam that is mentioned here. Funny how you have to go to so much
trouble to TRY to discredit me when I never say a word about anyone but Meyer.
Go crawl back under your rock CONover you liar.
JW
"At this time the reports of incidents convince us that there is
something going on that must have immediate attention. Sightings
of unexplained objects at high altitudes and traveling at high speeds
in the vicinity of major U.S. defense installations are of such nature
that they are not attributable to natural phenomena or known
types of vehicles."
H. Marshall Chadwell, Scientific Director of the CIA, stated in 1952
Don Widders
news:7ce4e226.02090...@posting.google.com...
As you know, Harry, there are several (even without counting J.W.) I
consider J.W. to be more 'unbalanced' than stupid and in general, the people
participating in this newsgroup are well informed. Imagine how many people
in the general public are chaffing at the bit to 'partner' with someone like
Tilley.
You think Tilley only allows rich people to invest? If a father had been
putting aside college money for his children and was worried because the
market had battered the fund and there might not be enough for a decent
education without spectacular returns do you think Tilley would turn away
the investment?
I do have a grudge against Tilley and also against his associate, Mr. Doug
Littlefield. Here is the threat Mr. Littlefield threw out to me for
suggesting to Bobby Allison that involvement in the "Validation" event is
not in his best interest:
"You can rest assured this will be turned over to our attorneys to deal with
in the strongest means allowed by law."
Unfortunately, law allows some nasty means (such as frivolous lawsuits.) I
don't take kindly to threats from men like Tilley and Littlefield.
Don W.
Harry Conover
Even the auto industry can, but who wants them if they have nothing to
offer in return for their ridiculous cost?
Harry C.
WTH
> On Sat, 7 Sep 2002 16:38:52 -0700, "Don Widders"
> <wid...@talkwithoutdifficulty.org> wrote:
>
> >I think they're saying that the car wasn't going FAST enough for the slope
> >of the banks and that caused too much stress on the bearings.
>
> The Nashville Superspeedway has 14 degree banks on turns that are
> about 600 feet in radius. This translates to a "zero lateral g" speed
> of about 47 miles per hour. The wheelbearing excuse just doesn't
> wash.
>
> >One would think if Carl Tilley is some sort of genius he could have figured
> >this out before renting the Nashville Speedway for a Saturday!
>
> Don't think it wasn't planned (or hoped for). (And did anyone verify
> that a wheel bearing really died, anyway?) This is precisely why he
> unveiled his "perpetual charger" wrapped in a Delorean on a racetrack.
> There wouldn't be enough ancillary things to go wrong if the device
> was sitting alone on a table hooked up to input and output power
> meters.
>
Until I talked to one of my co-workers tonight, I would have agreed
with you that the breakdown was planned from the outset. However,
after hearing what he said (he was in the pit area prior to the demo),
I think the possibility exists that this might have been a real
equipment failure, but not the sort of failure that Tilley would have
everyone believe.
My colleague is an engineer and a very firm believer in the laws of
thermodynamics, but he was curious about Tilley's demo after all of
the hype in the Nashville media last week. He wanted to see it up
close and learn just how Tilley operated and how he presented his
invention to the public.
He had several fascinating observations:
(1) Tilley absolutely refused to let anyone look underneath the
Delorean. He had two armed security guards standing by the car who
would stop anyone who tried to get on their knees and look beneath the
vehicle. You could look under the hood, and look at the interior, but
you absolutely could NOT look at the underside of the vehicle. Tilley
got furious at anyone who tried it.
(2) Prior to starting the demo, Tilley had a battery charger (!)
hooked up to the Delorean's battery system. My colleague asked
point-blank why the batteries needed to be recharged, when Tilley's
"free energy" system was supposed to do that instead. Tilley's people
told him, "We just want to be sure the batteries are completely topped
off before the demo." My colleague thought this was hilarious. If
Tilley wanted to top off the batteries, why didn't he simply turn on
his overunity energy device and recharge them for free?
(3) Throughout the demo, Tilley's people were playing music from a
local jazz station over the speedway's P.A. system. It was loud
enough to drown out noise from the track. Why was Tilley playing this
music? My colleague could not be certain because of the P.A. volume,
but he thinks that he may have heard engine noise from the Delorean
when it was driving over the section of the track away from the
spectator stands. The Delorean was nice and quiet when it pulled into
the pit area or drove by the spectators, but he thought he heard a
much louder noise coming from the car as it drove on the outside
portion of the track.
Given Tilley's absolute paranoia about people peering under the car,
and given the engine noise he thinks he heard, my colleague believes
that Tilley may have hidden a gasoline-powered generator somewhere
inside the Delorean. After all, why choose a Delorean for this demo?
Perhaps the construction of the Delorean provided a very handy way of
hiding something Tilley doesn't want people to even glance at.
My colleague's theory is that Tilley installed a hidden generator to
periodically recharge the batteries whenever the Delorean drove over
the portion of the track opposite the spectator stands. The loud
music over the P.A. would have masked this noise from the spectators
and visitors in the pit area. The generator would have run about 30
seconds out of each minute, and thereby provided enough battery
recharge to keep the car going for hours.
If my colleague is right, what probably happened is that Tilley's
hidden generator / recharger system failed at the outset, and the
batteries quickly exhausted themselves. At that point Tilley claimed
mechanical failure and brought the demo to an end.
Many people have been asking "How long does it take to replace a wheel
bearing? Why didn't Tilley just fix the car and continue the demo?"
Ah, but if the repair you REALLY need to perform involves opening a
hidden compartment and letting people see a generator inside it, then
you can't fix it in public, can you?
This is only a theory, but it does seem to fit my colleague's
observations. It would also explain why Tilley seemed so very
confident that his car was going to break all EV distance and speed
records. Of course, it's just as likely that Tilley was simply
delusional about what the TEV could actually do, but this could be
more of an outright scam than most people think.
WTH
None of Your Business
<wid...@talkwithoutdifficulty.org> writes:
>> p.s., Don, how many people active in this newsgroup do you believe
>> take the Tilley crap seriously? J.W. doesn't count!
>
>As you know, Harry, there are several (even without counting J.W.) I
>consider J.W. to be more 'unbalanced' than stupid and in general, the people
>participating in this newsgroup are well informed.
Yea, well informed like you who makes unsubstantiated psychological analysis
about someone you never even met. Great science you fucking moron. The size of
your ego is only matched by the size of you fat mouth. Did you score more
brownie points with the gang here for throwing more aspersions at someone not
even involved in your pablum?
JW
"Man has lost the capacity to foresee and to forestall.
He will end by destroying it all." -Albert Schweitzer-
Don Widders
news:8047533a.02090...@posting.google.com...
Bobby Allison was told that if he noticed something unusual he was to keep
his mouth shut. That I was told by a member of Mr. Allison's team. I
believe that what you've written is exactly correct! Tilley isn't just
dishonest, he's also incompetent!
Don W.