On 6/26/2010 6:33 AM, Becca wrote:
> On 6/26/2010 2:49 AM, dsi1 wrote:
>> On 6/25/2010 9:05 PM, sf wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm sure there is some sort of trailer you can hitch up if you need to
>>> cart home volumes of goods from Costco.
>>
>> Gosh, I'd sure like to see that! A Smartcar with a cute little trailer
>> would be just adorable!
>>
>
> Here are some trailers for Smart Cars. They are ready for Costco.
>
> http://api.ning.com/files/n08ZwqdH4B...debackfull.jpg
>
>
> http://www.smartsrus.com/images/smar...er-04-edit.jpg
>
> http://media.photobucket.com/image/s...g/IMG_1950.jpg
>
>
> Becca
>

Two is ugly and one is not. :-)

In article >,
George > wrote:

> On 6/26/2010 11:13 AM, Dan Abel wrote:
> > In >,
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> On 6/25/2010 8:27 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> >
> >>> I think that in the long run efficiency will be sacrificed for utility
> >>> and they'll just make and burn hydrogen, which eliminates all of the
> >>> shortcomings of battery electrics and with a suitable carburetor works
> >>> fine in conventional gasoline engines besides.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Where will we get the hydrogen from? The usual method is electrolysis of
> >> water. The oxygen-hydrogen bond is strong and takes energy we will get
> >> from where to break it?
> >
> > Where do you get "usual method is electrolysis of water"? I have never
> > heard anybody knowledgeable propose that. Even the theoretical
> > percentage of efficiency is low. And then where do you get the
> > electricity? Many methods don't have that high of efficiency.
>
>
> Currently that is pretty much the major way to produce hydrogen.

Again, where are you getting that? 15 minutes in Google gives lots of
references to electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen, and how that is
not economical for industrial production:

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

"Currently the electrolytic process is rarely used in industrial
applications since hydrogen can be produced more affordably from fossil
fuels."

> > Under the leadership of our former President, George Bush II, the US
> > Federal Government allocated billions of dollars in basic R&D grants for
> > the production of hydrogen. All of this money went to the oil and gas
> > companies, since the plan only involved the use of fossil fuels! Now,
> > present internal combustion engines work fine with any fossil fuel. A
> > gasoline engine can work fine, without modification, for CNG (compressed
> > natural gas) or LPG (propane). You'll need a new gas tank and fuel
> > injector. This is existing technology. I drove a propane forklift 40
> > years ago. You can even have a dual fuel car. In fact, natural gas
> > cars are in production in the US:
> >
> But none of this implies higher efficiency. It is just a lets burn up
> something else thing.
>

It's more efficient. If you are going to make the hydrogen out of
fossil fuels anyway, why not just burn those fossil fuels in cars,
instead of converting fossil fuels to hydrogen and then developing all
new cars to burn hydrogen? My point is that we aren't "just burning up
something else", we are using fossil fuels in both cases.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On 6/26/2010 12:45 AM, George wrote:
> Where will we get the hydrogen from? The usual method is electrolysis of
> water. The oxygen-hydrogen bond is strong and takes energy we will get
> from where to break it?

I'm guessing the power to supply all of our energy needs would come from
thousands of nuke reactors located around the Arctic circle. Hopefully,
Canadians won't mind having a few power cables running through their
territory. Well, not too much. :-)

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> sf wrote:
>
> >> Well, if it was a hybrid, you'd add the weight of a generator and
> >> electric motor and a battery to that total, and the volume to hold them all.
> >>
> > I know nothing about technology, but extra weight and volume would be
> > a good thing in terms of personal safety.
>
> That would depend on where the extra weight is. If it is in the frame
> and the body it should offer a little more protection. It it is in the
> motor(s), fuel tank and huge batteries (and batteries are heavy), then
> it is just going to result in more inertia, and they may cut back
> elsewhere to compensate for the weight of the batteries.

Not only that, but if you get into an accident
emergency services might not enter your vehicle
until they're sure the battery is safe. I think
there was a case like that around here recently,
in which treatment was delayed for some guy in
a wrecked hybrid. I guess electric shock is
considered more risky that gasoline. A cop
once told me he'd never seen a case in which
a car burst into flame. It could be that
electric shock is just a more unfamiliar risk.

On 6/25/2010 7:55 PM, Omelet wrote:
> In m.au>,
> > wrote:
>
>> On 26/06/2010 2:44 PM, Omelet wrote:
>>> In >, >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/25/2010 8:13 AM, sf wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 23:47:51 -1000, > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not a big fan of hybrid technology - it's way too complicated. The
>>>>>> important part is that it's an intermediate step between gas and all
>>>>>> electric cars. Internal combustion and hybrid cars and fuel cell cars
>>>>>> are not the future - all electric is. Well that's just my guess.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not claiming hybrids are the future, but they are an excellent
>>>>> transition.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree with you there. Without them, the acceptance of all electric
>>>> would have taken a lot longer. The next couple of years will be big
>>>> years for all electric.
>>>
>>> From ads I've see tho', all electric don't hold a charge well enough to
>>> get you thru a major traffic jam from a bad wreck. I've been stuck for
>>> up to two hours, not to mention the normal 30 to 60 minute commute.
>>
>> Apart from lights and instruments, the electrics don't consume much
>> power when not moving! You only feed power when you need to move.
>>
>> Krypsis
>
> But they still won't last 4 hours stuck in accident traffic on a real
> commute. :-(

I think you mean real nightmare. :-) Sooner or later they'll embed
energized coils under the road that allow you to charge the batteries
while driving. Put enough coils and you could reduce the need for
surplus battery capacity significantly.

In article >,
"James Silverton" > wrote:


> But what do you do about A/C while stuck in traffic in Texas? You aren't
> one of those San Franciscans who pontificate about not really needing
> A/C, are you?

AC? Who needs that? I bought a car in March, and haven't turned on the
AC yet!

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On 6/26/2010 2:12 PM, cshenk wrote:
> "J. Clarke" wrote
>
>> FWIW, headlight use on motorcycles is mandatory in the US, to the
>> point that few new bikes even have a headlight switch. I added a
>> modulator to mine which cycles the intensity (and before anybody says
>> anything about legality, motorcycle headlight modulators are
>> explicitly allowed by Federal law that overrides all state and local
>> statutes).
>
> JC, had a near fatal accident here just recently due exactly to that.
> The person had spiked it so high, they were blinding drivers through the
> rear view mirror. They'd set it way too high then somehow adjusted the
> angle up higher than supposed to be? Just warning you to be careful to
> not go *too* far along that route as it can backfire.

If a headlight shining into a rear view mirror is blinding a driver in
daylight that driver has something wrong with him. And the modulator
doesn't "spike it".

> Yes, I'm always careful of cyclists be it motor or muscle powered.

On 6/26/2010 2:03 PM, sf wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 13:20:29 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> > wrote:
>
>> On 6/26/2010 3:08 AM, sf wrote:
>>> On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 20:23:08 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/25/2010 2:20 PM, sf wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Maybe some other resident of my city has better information, but
>>>>> as far as I know we don't have stations that sell hydrogen or any
>>>>> other alternate fuel within the city limits.
>>>>
>>>> Check again. Most major cities have a purveyor of industrial gases.
>>>> It's just not listed as an automotive filling station.
>>>
>>> You don't live here so you don't know, so stop shooting off your
>>> mouth.
>>
>> Did you check?
>
> Why should I? Please read for comprehension.

Because you're full of shit?

On 6/26/2010 2:07 PM, sf wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 13:44:17 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> > wrote:
>
>> On 6/26/2010 3:11 AM, sf wrote:
>>> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 12:08:55 +1000, >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I laugh at those who suggest the electric cars (plug in overnight types)
>>>> are going to solve the emissions problems. You see, all our electricity
>>>> is generated, in my home state at least, by dirty brown coal generators.
>>>> All that's going to happen is a transferrence of pollution to where the
>>>> generators are.
>>>
>>> I don't know about "most people", but my vision of the perfect
>>> electric car has never been a plug in type - it's always solar.
>>
>> So how does that work?
>>
> You seem to know everything, so figure it out.

Oh, you mean you're sure that "somebody" can do it as long as that
"somebody" isn't you. The technology as magic approach. Gotcha.

On 6/26/2010 2:26 PM, sf wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 14:05:17 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> Is your area especially unique? Any town that has any sort of industrial
>> facilities will have propane and natural gas distributors.
>
> Not much in the way of "industry" here anymore. Warehouses are living
> quarters now. No hydrogen dealers, one place to buy propane on my
> side of town, natural gas comes into the house via a pipe.

So you're saying that Airgas on Illinois Street doesn't have hydrogen?

On 6/26/2010 3:16 PM, Mark Thorson wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>> sf wrote:
>>
>>>> Well, if it was a hybrid, you'd add the weight of a generator and
>>>> electric motor and a battery to that total, and the volume to hold them all.
>>>>
>>> I know nothing about technology, but extra weight and volume would be
>>> a good thing in terms of personal safety.
>>
>> That would depend on where the extra weight is. If it is in the frame
>> and the body it should offer a little more protection. It it is in the
>> motor(s), fuel tank and huge batteries (and batteries are heavy), then
>> it is just going to result in more inertia, and they may cut back
>> elsewhere to compensate for the weight of the batteries.
>
> Not only that, but if you get into an accident
> emergency services might not enter your vehicle
> until they're sure the battery is safe. I think
> there was a case like that around here recently,
> in which treatment was delayed for some guy in
> a wrecked hybrid. I guess electric shock is
> considered more risky that gasoline. A cop
> once told me he'd never seen a case in which
> a car burst into flame. It could be that
> electric shock is just a more unfamiliar risk.

Then there's the matter of lithium batteries and their propensity to
explode when damaged.

On 6/26/2010 3:12 PM, Dan Abel wrote:
> In >,
> > wrote:
>
>> On 6/26/2010 11:13 AM, Dan Abel wrote:
>>> In >,
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/25/2010 8:27 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I think that in the long run efficiency will be sacrificed for utility
>>>>> and they'll just make and burn hydrogen, which eliminates all of the
>>>>> shortcomings of battery electrics and with a suitable carburetor works
>>>>> fine in conventional gasoline engines besides.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Where will we get the hydrogen from? The usual method is electrolysis of
>>>> water. The oxygen-hydrogen bond is strong and takes energy we will get
>>>> from where to break it?
>>>
>>> Where do you get "usual method is electrolysis of water"? I have never
>>> heard anybody knowledgeable propose that. Even the theoretical
>>> percentage of efficiency is low. And then where do you get the
>>> electricity? Many methods don't have that high of efficiency.
>>
>>
>> Currently that is pretty much the major way to produce hydrogen.
>
> Again, where are you getting that? 15 minutes in Google gives lots of
> references to electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen, and how that is
> not economical for industrial production:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water
>
> "Currently the electrolytic process is rarely used in industrial
> applications since hydrogen can be produced more affordably from fossil
> fuels."
>
>>> Under the leadership of our former President, George Bush II, the US
>>> Federal Government allocated billions of dollars in basic R&D grants for
>>> the production of hydrogen. All of this money went to the oil and gas
>>> companies, since the plan only involved the use of fossil fuels! Now,
>>> present internal combustion engines work fine with any fossil fuel. A
>>> gasoline engine can work fine, without modification, for CNG (compressed
>>> natural gas) or LPG (propane). You'll need a new gas tank and fuel
>>> injector. This is existing technology. I drove a propane forklift 40
>>> years ago. You can even have a dual fuel car. In fact, natural gas
>>> cars are in production in the US:
>>>
>> But none of this implies higher efficiency. It is just a lets burn up
>> something else thing.
>>
>
> It's more efficient. If you are going to make the hydrogen out of
> fossil fuels anyway, why not just burn those fossil fuels in cars,
> instead of converting fossil fuels to hydrogen and then developing all
> new cars to burn hydrogen? My point is that we aren't "just burning up
> something else", we are using fossil fuels in both cases.

Two arguments. One--using hydrogen means that CO2 sequestration can be
done at a fixed facility--attempting CO2 sequestration in motor vehicles
would be a nightmare. Two, it allows for an orderly transition to
electrolytic hydrogen when the fossil fuels run out.
>

On 6/26/2010 3:15 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> On 6/26/2010 12:45 AM, George wrote:
>> Where will we get the hydrogen from? The usual method is electrolysis of
>> water. The oxygen-hydrogen bond is strong and takes energy we will get
>> from where to break it?
>
> I'm guessing the power to supply all of our energy needs would come from
> thousands of nuke reactors located around the Arctic circle. Hopefully,
> Canadians won't mind having a few power cables running through their
> territory. Well, not too much. :-)

Why would they be "located around the Arctic circle"? Are you expecting
Global Warming to go bust?

On 6/26/2010 3:20 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> On 6/25/2010 7:55 PM, Omelet wrote:
>> In m.au>,
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 26/06/2010 2:44 PM, Omelet wrote:
>>>> In >, >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/25/2010 8:13 AM, sf wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 23:47:51 -1000, > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not a big fan of hybrid technology - it's way too
>>>>>>> complicated. The
>>>>>>> important part is that it's an intermediate step between gas and all
>>>>>>> electric cars. Internal combustion and hybrid cars and fuel cell
>>>>>>> cars
>>>>>>> are not the future - all electric is. Well that's just my guess.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not claiming hybrids are the future, but they are an excellent
>>>>>> transition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with you there. Without them, the acceptance of all electric
>>>>> would have taken a lot longer. The next couple of years will be big
>>>>> years for all electric.
>>>>
>>>> From ads I've see tho', all electric don't hold a charge well enough to
>>>> get you thru a major traffic jam from a bad wreck. I've been stuck for
>>>> up to two hours, not to mention the normal 30 to 60 minute commute.
>>>
>>> Apart from lights and instruments, the electrics don't consume much
>>> power when not moving! You only feed power when you need to move.
>>>
>>> Krypsis
>>
>> But they still won't last 4 hours stuck in accident traffic on a real
>> commute. :-(
>
> I think you mean real nightmare. :-) Sooner or later they'll embed
> energized coils under the road that allow you to charge the batteries
> while driving. Put enough coils and you could reduce the need for
> surplus battery capacity significantly.

How are they going to bill for that though?

"J. Clarke" wrote
> cshenk wrote:

> If a headlight shining into a rear view mirror is blinding a driver in
> daylight that driver has something wrong with him. And the modulator
> doesn't "spike it".

JC, it was at night.

I don't ride a motorcycle. Several co-workers do and that's how I heard
about it. They used the term 'modulator' and said it basically flashes the
level higher and lower. If that is right (keep in mind, I don't have a
motorbike) they said 'spike'.

I mean no harm. I just want to warn you if you didnt already know that
there is a safe level, and an unsafe one. Too much of it can distract the
driver ahead of you and cause an accident which then you get wrapped up in
(or killed by).

On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 16:11:48 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> wrote:

>On 6/26/2010 2:03 PM, sf wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 13:20:29 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/26/2010 3:08 AM, sf wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 20:23:08 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/25/2010 2:20 PM, sf wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe some other resident of my city has better information, but
>>>>>> as far as I know we don't have stations that sell hydrogen or any
>>>>>> other alternate fuel within the city limits.
>>>>>
>>>>> Check again. Most major cities have a purveyor of industrial gases.
>>>>> It's just not listed as an automotive filling station.
>>>>
>>>> You don't live here so you don't know, so stop shooting off your
>>>> mouth.
>>>
>>> Did you check?
>>
>> Why should I? Please read for comprehension.
>
>Because you're full of shit?

No, you are infering that SoFat has intelligence but is playing
dumb... she actually is dumb.

J. Clarke wrote:
> On 6/26/2010 3:20 PM, dsi1 wrote:

>> I think you mean real nightmare. :-) Sooner or later they'll embed
>> energized coils under the road that allow you to charge the batteries
>> while driving. Put enough coils and you could reduce the need for
>> surplus battery capacity significantly.
>
> How are they going to bill for that though?
>
Sealed blackbox in every vehicle? Throw in a GPS whilst at it, and one
has automagic speed enforcement. Some European countries are considering
that already.

Inductive feeds could have some interesting side-effects - they are used
for AGVs, low-ish current compared to what a road would need, but
already one can drop a piece of metal on the track and heat it up
nicely. Good for making coffee when traffic comes to a stand-still. And
I'll be digging in a little auxiliary coil in the road going past my home.

-j

In article >,
"J. Clarke" > wrote:

> On 6/26/2010 11:38 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> > Dan Abel wrote:
> >
> >> Where do you get "usual method is electrolysis of water"? I have never
> >> heard anybody knowledgeable propose that. Even the theoretical
> >> percentage of efficiency is low. And then where do you get the
> >> electricity? Many methods don't have that high of efficiency.
> >
> >
> > Electrolysis is a method of producing hydrogen on an industrial scale.
>
> It's a method of producing hydrogen. However it is not used "on an
> industrial scale".

In general, electrolysis is:

"chemical decomposition produced by passing an electric current through
a liquid or solution containing ions"

[from my dictionary]

My father worked for years in a plant that electrolyzed aluminum ore to
make aluminum. The plant used more electricity than the whole rest of
the town (200,000 people). As far as I know, all commercial production
of aluminum is done that way.

> > My late brother in law was an engineer
>
> I'm an engineer too. Being an engineer doesn't mean that one knows what
> one is talking about.

I wasn't going to post that.

:-)

> > who thought that is was a viable
> > way of using renewable energy to produce hydrogen in remote areas and
> > then ship the gas to areas where it could be burned to produce energy.
>
> Once the price of the alternatives is high enough that it makes economic
> sense to do it.
>
> > He thought that it could be used on northern waterways where there are
> > lots waterfalls that could use hydroelectric dams.
>
> So how many "northern waterways" with sites appropriate to such dams do
> not already have dams on those sites.
>
> > There would be too
> > much energy lost in transmission to use power lines,
>
> How far "north" are you talking? Power transmission over a thousand
> miles or so doesn't result in "too much energy lost".
>
> > but that the gas
> > could be transported or piped to high density areas. In addition to
> > harnessing a renewable energy source, it is clean fuel.

I'm not an engineer, and don't play one on tv, but I think a few facts,
along with some paper and pencil, would be useful. I don't have cites
right now, but they wouldn't be hard to get. Transmission over electric
power lines is very efficient. Electrolysis of water to produce
hydrogen is not efficient. Burning the hydrogen at the other end is not
efficient.

In addition, you have to find hydroelectric sites. Don't know about
elsewhere, but "dam" in the US is a four letter word. In fact, there is
serious talk from certain people about how we should take down the dams.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

In article >,
"J. Clarke" > wrote:

> On 6/26/2010 3:11 AM, sf wrote:
> > On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 12:08:55 +1000, >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I laugh at those who suggest the electric cars (plug in overnight types)
> >> are going to solve the emissions problems. You see, all our electricity
> >> is generated, in my home state at least, by dirty brown coal generators.
> >> All that's going to happen is a transferrence of pollution to where the
> >> generators are.
> >
> > I don't know about "most people", but my vision of the perfect
> > electric car has never been a plug in type - it's always solar.
>
> So how does that work?

Pretty well, as long as you always carry a little flashlight in your
pocket to recharge it.

:-)

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On 6/26/2010 4:49 PM, cshenk wrote:
> "J. Clarke" wrote
>> cshenk wrote:
>
>> If a headlight shining into a rear view mirror is blinding a driver in
>> daylight that driver has something wrong with him. And the modulator
>> doesn't "spike it".
>
> JC, it was at night.

A legal modulator has a light sensor that turns it off at night.

> I don't ride a motorcycle. Several co-workers do and that's how I heard
> about it. They used the term 'modulator' and said it basically flashes
> the level higher and lower. If that is right (keep in mind, I don't have
> a motorbike) they said 'spike'.

A surprising number of motorcyclists don't know much about motorcycling.

The modulator reduces the intensity on a regular cycle. That's all it does.

Now that doesn't mean that somebody somewhere doesn't make an illegal
device that overdrives the headlight for the purpose of annoying
people--there's a certain segment of the motorcycling community that
feels that they have a God-given duty to be obnoxious pests--but that's
not safety equipment, that's bling.

> I mean no harm. I just want to warn you if you didnt already know that
> there is a safe level, and an unsafe one. Too much of it can distract
> the driver ahead of you and cause an accident which then you get wrapped
> up in (or killed by).

Sorry if I seemed to snap at you.

On 6/26/2010 6:14 PM, Dan Abel wrote:
> In >,
> "J. > wrote:
>
>> On 6/26/2010 11:38 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>>> Dan Abel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Where do you get "usual method is electrolysis of water"? I have never
>>>> heard anybody knowledgeable propose that. Even the theoretical
>>>> percentage of efficiency is low. And then where do you get the
>>>> electricity? Many methods don't have that high of efficiency.
>>>
>>>
>>> Electrolysis is a method of producing hydrogen on an industrial scale.
>>
>> It's a method of producing hydrogen. However it is not used "on an
>> industrial scale".
>
> In general, electrolysis is:
>
> "chemical decomposition produced by passing an electric current through
> a liquid or solution containing ions"
>
> [from my dictionary]
>
> My father worked for years in a plant that electrolyzed aluminum ore to
> make aluminum. The plant used more electricity than the whole rest of
> the town (200,000 people). As far as I know, all commercial production
> of aluminum is done that way.

To produce aluminum, not hydrogen. If you can figure out a cheaper way
to produce aluminum you will become a wealthy man.

>>> My late brother in law was an engineer
>>
>> I'm an engineer too. Being an engineer doesn't mean that one knows what
>> one is talking about.
>
> I wasn't going to post that.
>
> :-)
>
>>> who thought that is was a viable
>>> way of using renewable energy to produce hydrogen in remote areas and
>>> then ship the gas to areas where it could be burned to produce energy.
>>
>> Once the price of the alternatives is high enough that it makes economic
>> sense to do it.
>>
>>> He thought that it could be used on northern waterways where there are
>>> lots waterfalls that could use hydroelectric dams.
>>
>> So how many "northern waterways" with sites appropriate to such dams do
>> not already have dams on those sites.
>>
>>> There would be too
>>> much energy lost in transmission to use power lines,
>>
>> How far "north" are you talking? Power transmission over a thousand
>> miles or so doesn't result in "too much energy lost".
>>
>>> but that the gas
>>> could be transported or piped to high density areas. In addition to
>>> harnessing a renewable energy source, it is clean fuel.
>
> I'm not an engineer, and don't play one on tv, but I think a few facts,
> along with some paper and pencil, would be useful. I don't have cites
> right now, but they wouldn't be hard to get. Transmission over electric
> power lines is very efficient. Electrolysis of water to produce
> hydrogen is not efficient. Burning the hydrogen at the other end is not
> efficient.
>
> In addition, you have to find hydroelectric sites. Don't know about
> elsewhere, but "dam" in the US is a four letter word. In fact, there is
> serious talk from certain people about how we should take down the dams.
>

On 6/26/2010 4:04 PM, Dan Abel wrote:
> In >,
> "James > wrote:
>
>
>> But what do you do about A/C while stuck in traffic in Texas? You aren't
>> one of those San Franciscans who pontificate about not really needing
>> A/C, are you?
>
> AC? Who needs that? I bought a car in March, and haven't turned on the
> AC yet!

Do you live in Texas?

On 27/06/2010 3:09 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> On 6/26/2010 1:26 AM, Krypsis wrote:
>> On 26/06/2010 2:51 PM, Omelet wrote:
>>> In >,
>>> "J. > wrote:
>>>
>>>> But how many of those motorcyclists were injured on a controlled-access
>>>> highway?
>>>
>>> IMHO with donorcycles. all bets are off... especially if they are too
>>> stubborn to wear helmets.
>>>
>>> My few weeks training at a major trauma blood bank taught me that,
>>> especially with the recent Austin donorcycle rally.
>>
>> The new barriers that they are using on freeways and highways here are
>> perfect to slice and dice your "donorcycles". They are replacing all the
>> Armco Railings here with post and wire barriers.
>
> ACK. WHY?!?!?!
>
I have asked that question many times myself!

>> About the only thing
>> that the new railings won't do is package up the remains.
>
> Of course Armco installed the wrong way can make an awful mess of you.

It won't "slice and dice" you however.
>>
>> BTW, the remains will be less than useful for donating anything after a
>> slice and dice!
>>
Krypsis
>>
>>
>

In article >,
"J. Clarke" > wrote:

> On 6/26/2010 4:04 PM, Dan Abel wrote:
> > In >,
> > "James > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> But what do you do about A/C while stuck in traffic in Texas? You aren't
> >> one of those San Franciscans who pontificate about not really needing
> >> A/C, are you?
> >
> > AC? Who needs that? I bought a car in March, and haven't turned on the
> > AC yet!
>
> Do you live in Texas?

I don't think so. My town has a recorded high of 110F. So far this
year, it just hasn't gotten that hot here. It should warm up the next
few months.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On 6/26/2010 10:26 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> On 6/26/2010 3:15 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>> On 6/26/2010 12:45 AM, George wrote:
>>> Where will we get the hydrogen from? The usual method is electrolysis of
>>> water. The oxygen-hydrogen bond is strong and takes energy we will get
>>> from where to break it?
>>
>> I'm guessing the power to supply all of our energy needs would come from
>> thousands of nuke reactors located around the Arctic circle. Hopefully,
>> Canadians won't mind having a few power cables running through their
>> territory. Well, not too much. :-)
>
> Why would they be "located around the Arctic circle"? Are you expecting
> Global Warming to go bust?
>

OK, we'll stick it in your backyard. :-)

It doesn't matter much what I think about the Earth's temperature - it's
gonna do whatever it wants to do.

On 6/26/2010 10:27 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> On 6/26/2010 3:20 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>> On 6/25/2010 7:55 PM, Omelet wrote:
>>> In m.au>,
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 26/06/2010 2:44 PM, Omelet wrote:
>>>>> In >, >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/25/2010 8:13 AM, sf wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 23:47:51 -1000, > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not a big fan of hybrid technology - it's way too
>>>>>>>> complicated. The
>>>>>>>> important part is that it's an intermediate step between gas and
>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>> electric cars. Internal combustion and hybrid cars and fuel cell
>>>>>>>> cars
>>>>>>>> are not the future - all electric is. Well that's just my guess.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not claiming hybrids are the future, but they are an excellent
>>>>>>> transition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree with you there. Without them, the acceptance of all electric
>>>>>> would have taken a lot longer. The next couple of years will be big
>>>>>> years for all electric.
>>>>>
>>>>> From ads I've see tho', all electric don't hold a charge well
>>>>> enough to
>>>>> get you thru a major traffic jam from a bad wreck. I've been stuck for
>>>>> up to two hours, not to mention the normal 30 to 60 minute commute.
>>>>
>>>> Apart from lights and instruments, the electrics don't consume much
>>>> power when not moving! You only feed power when you need to move.
>>>>
>>>> Krypsis
>>>
>>> But they still won't last 4 hours stuck in accident traffic on a real
>>> commute. :-(
>>
>> I think you mean real nightmare. :-) Sooner or later they'll embed
>> energized coils under the road that allow you to charge the batteries
>> while driving. Put enough coils and you could reduce the need for
>> surplus battery capacity significantly.
>
> How are they going to bill for that though?
>

You'll get a bill mailed to you, just like you get a bill mailed to you
everytime you travel down the interstate.

On 6/26/2010 9:02 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> On 6/26/2010 10:26 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On 6/26/2010 3:15 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>>> On 6/26/2010 12:45 AM, George wrote:
>>>> Where will we get the hydrogen from? The usual method is
>>>> electrolysis of
>>>> water. The oxygen-hydrogen bond is strong and takes energy we will get
>>>> from where to break it?
>>>
>>> I'm guessing the power to supply all of our energy needs would come from
>>> thousands of nuke reactors located around the Arctic circle. Hopefully,
>>> Canadians won't mind having a few power cables running through their
>>> territory. Well, not too much. :-)
>>
>> Why would they be "located around the Arctic circle"? Are you expecting
>> Global Warming to go bust?
>>
>
> OK, we'll stick it in your backyard. :-)

Fine with me.

> It doesn't matter much what I think about the Earth's temperature - it's
> gonna do whatever it wants to do.

On 6/26/2010 9:05 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> On 6/26/2010 10:27 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On 6/26/2010 3:20 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>>> On 6/25/2010 7:55 PM, Omelet wrote:
>>>> In m.au>,
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 26/06/2010 2:44 PM, Omelet wrote:
>>>>>> In >, >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6/25/2010 8:13 AM, sf wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 23:47:51 -1000, > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm not a big fan of hybrid technology - it's way too
>>>>>>>>> complicated. The
>>>>>>>>> important part is that it's an intermediate step between gas and
>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>> electric cars. Internal combustion and hybrid cars and fuel cell
>>>>>>>>> cars
>>>>>>>>> are not the future - all electric is. Well that's just my guess.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not claiming hybrids are the future, but they are an excellent
>>>>>>>> transition.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree with you there. Without them, the acceptance of all electric
>>>>>>> would have taken a lot longer. The next couple of years will be big
>>>>>>> years for all electric.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From ads I've see tho', all electric don't hold a charge well
>>>>>> enough to
>>>>>> get you thru a major traffic jam from a bad wreck. I've been stuck
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> up to two hours, not to mention the normal 30 to 60 minute commute.
>>>>>
>>>>> Apart from lights and instruments, the electrics don't consume much
>>>>> power when not moving! You only feed power when you need to move.
>>>>>
>>>>> Krypsis
>>>>
>>>> But they still won't last 4 hours stuck in accident traffic on a real
>>>> commute. :-(
>>>
>>> I think you mean real nightmare. :-) Sooner or later they'll embed
>>> energized coils under the road that allow you to charge the batteries
>>> while driving. Put enough coils and you could reduce the need for
>>> surplus battery capacity significantly.
>>
>> How are they going to bill for that though?
>>
>
> You'll get a bill mailed to you, just like you get a bill mailed to you
> everytime you travel down the interstate.

So you're saying that it will be paid for out of the gas tax?

On 6/26/2010 4:00 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> On 6/26/2010 9:05 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>> On 6/26/2010 10:27 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On 6/26/2010 3:20 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>>>> On 6/25/2010 7:55 PM, Omelet wrote:
>>>>> In m.au>,
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 26/06/2010 2:44 PM, Omelet wrote:
>>>>>>> In >, >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/25/2010 8:13 AM, sf wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 23:47:51 -1000, > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm not a big fan of hybrid technology - it's way too
>>>>>>>>>> complicated. The
>>>>>>>>>> important part is that it's an intermediate step between gas and
>>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>> electric cars. Internal combustion and hybrid cars and fuel cell
>>>>>>>>>> cars
>>>>>>>>>> are not the future - all electric is. Well that's just my guess.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm not claiming hybrids are the future, but they are an excellent
>>>>>>>>> transition.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree with you there. Without them, the acceptance of all
>>>>>>>> electric
>>>>>>>> would have taken a lot longer. The next couple of years will be big
>>>>>>>> years for all electric.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From ads I've see tho', all electric don't hold a charge well
>>>>>>> enough to
>>>>>>> get you thru a major traffic jam from a bad wreck. I've been stuck
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> up to two hours, not to mention the normal 30 to 60 minute commute.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apart from lights and instruments, the electrics don't consume much
>>>>>> power when not moving! You only feed power when you need to move.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Krypsis
>>>>>
>>>>> But they still won't last 4 hours stuck in accident traffic on a real
>>>>> commute. :-(
>>>>
>>>> I think you mean real nightmare. :-) Sooner or later they'll embed
>>>> energized coils under the road that allow you to charge the batteries
>>>> while driving. Put enough coils and you could reduce the need for
>>>> surplus battery capacity significantly.
>>>
>>> How are they going to bill for that though?
>>>
>>
>> You'll get a bill mailed to you, just like you get a bill mailed to you
>> everytime you travel down the interstate.
>
> So you're saying that it will be paid for out of the gas tax?
>

I ain't saying nothing about who's gonna pay for anything. Obviously,
somebody's gonna pay. Somebody always pays.

Obviously, you like to while away the hours thinking about reasons
things should stay the way you like it. This is unrealistic. Things
never stay the same - well, most things of a
sociological/economic/technological nature anyway.

In article >,
sf > wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 23:39:51 -0500, Omelet >
> wrote:
>
> > We used to have a fenced off cliff locally where morons dove off and
> > broke their necks. They kept breaking thru the fencing.
> >
> > Without exception (in the 23 years I worked there), alcohol was always
> > involved...
>
> Sounds like vehicular suicide to me, not a lack of intelligence.

Uh, pardon me.... but driving drunk is not a bright thing to do.
That does indeed indicate lack of intelligence. ;-)

But what does diving off of a cliff in to shallow water have to do with
driving?
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
Only Irish coffee provides in a single glass all four essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar and fat. --Alex Levine

In article >,
sf > wrote:

> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 12:08:55 +1000, Krypsis >
> wrote:
>
> > I laugh at those who suggest the electric cars (plug in overnight types)
> > are going to solve the emissions problems. You see, all our electricity
> > is generated, in my home state at least, by dirty brown coal generators.
> > All that's going to happen is a transferrence of pollution to where the
> > generators are.
>
> I don't know about "most people", but my vision of the perfect
> electric car has never been a plug in type - it's always solar.

That would indeed be the idea. ;-)
With battery backup for night driving.
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
Only Irish coffee provides in a single glass all four essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar and fat. --Alex Levine

In article >,
sf > wrote:

> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 00:55:00 -0500, Omelet >
> wrote:
>
> > But they still won't last 4 hours stuck in accident traffic on a real
> > commute. :-(
>
> Holy cr*p! 4 hours stuck in traffic? Don't Texans know how to turn
> off their engines when they are stuck at a stand still?

The traffic in those situations is generally traveling at 2 to 4 mph.
You'd seriously **** other drivers off if you shut off your engine.
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
Only Irish coffee provides in a single glass all four essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar and fat. --Alex Levine

In article >,
George > wrote:

> On 6/26/2010 12:42 AM, Omelet wrote:
> > In >,
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 08:49:54 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>> Fuel cell _is_ all electric. You just charge the battery by putting
> >>> hydrogen in it instead of hooking wires to it.
> >>>
> >>> And when I'm stuck in traffic in a New England winter, a big tank of
> >>> hydrogen is a _much_ more reassuring heat source than a half-discharged
> >>> battery.
> >>
> >> It's pretty hard to drive a hydrogen car if you can't find the fuel it
> >> up. Maybe some other resident of my city has better information, but
> >> as far as I know we don't have stations that sell hydrogen or any
> >> other alternate fuel within the city limits.
> >
> > That is currently my biggest concern about all electric cars.
> > Get stuck on the freeway during an accident for 3 or 4 hours...
> >
> > You are screwed.
>
> Why? The main consideration with a pure electric is range not time. If
> you aren't moving you are only consuming trivial energy from the batteries.

And if the batteries run down?
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

In article >,
George > wrote:

> > I think that in the long run efficiency will be sacrificed for utility
> > and they'll just make and burn hydrogen, which eliminates all of the
> > shortcomings of battery electrics and with a suitable carburetor works
> > fine in conventional gasoline engines besides.
> >
> >
> Where will we get the hydrogen from? The usual method is electrolysis of
> water. The oxygen-hydrogen bond is strong and takes energy we will get
> from where to break it?

This was interesting:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNTLo7-Jkl8>
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

In article >,
"James Silverton" > wrote:

> > Err, electric motors don't idle in traffic. If they aren't
> > involved in moving the vehicle, they aren't consuming current.
> > Get away from the concept of internal combustion engines when you're
> > talking electric cars. Totally different ball game!
>
> But what do you do about A/C while stuck in traffic in Texas? You aren't
> one of those San Franciscans who pontificate about not really needing
> A/C, are you?
>
> --
>
> James Silverton
> Potomac, Maryland

You sweat. ;-)
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

In article >, Becca >
wrote:

> On 6/24/2010 9:41 PM, Omelet wrote:
> > In .au>,
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> Not even Sheldon! ;-)
> >> And not everyone wants a vehicle that has all the styling of a military
> >> tank! Even the colour makes it far better suited to Iraq!
> >>
> >> Krypsis
> >>
> > Well,,, I must confess I've looked in envy at Humvees.<g>
> >
>
> You have definitely turned into a Texan, Om.
>
> Becca

Been driving a Chevy S-10 since 1998... ;-)
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

In article >, Becca >
wrote:

> > Gosh, I'd sure like to see that! A Smartcar with a cute little trailer
> > would be just adorable!
> >
>
> Here are some trailers for Smart Cars. They are ready for Costco.
>
> http://api.ning.com/files/n08ZwqdH4B...SahNQ_/lssideb
> ackfull.jpg
>
> http://www.smartsrus.com/images/smar...er-04-edit.jpg
>
> http://media.photobucket.com/image/s...g/IMG_1950.jpg
>
> Becca

Cute indeed... ;-)
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

In article >,
George > wrote:

> > Where do you get "usual method is electrolysis of water"? I have never
> > heard anybody knowledgeable propose that. Even the theoretical
> > percentage of efficiency is low. And then where do you get the
> > electricity? Many methods don't have that high of efficiency.
>
>
> Currently that is pretty much the major way to produce hydrogen. And you
> did echo my comment about where would you get the electricity.

"Currently"???

Nice pun George. <lol>
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

In article >,
"J. Clarke" > wrote:

> > Thanks for the web site. Why would I go to a gas station 10 miles
> > away? SF is only 9 miles across. I checked a radius of 5 miles which
> > covers SF for me and there is no hydrogen station within that
> > parameter. 10 didn't turn up anything either. The biodiesel stations
> > were news to me, but they are far enough away that I'd never consider
> > using them and I don't approve of biodiesel anyway.
>
> The point is that now, today, with practically _no_ hydrogen fueled
> vehicles on the road, there are nonetheless automotive fueling stations
> that provide hydrogen within a reasonable distance.

I've yet to see one around here...
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

In article >, dsi1 >
wrote:

> >> Apart from lights and instruments, the electrics don't consume much
> >> power when not moving! You only feed power when you need to move.
> >>
> >> Krypsis
> >
> > But they still won't last 4 hours stuck in accident traffic on a real
> > commute. :-(
>
> I think you mean real nightmare. :-) Sooner or later they'll embed
> energized coils under the road that allow you to charge the batteries
> while driving. Put enough coils and you could reduce the need for
> surplus battery capacity significantly.

That could be fun... <g>

Why not embed magnatrons and run antigrav cars off of magnetism? ;-)
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine