On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 08:25:53 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:

> In article >,
> 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.
>
> http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/locator/stations/
>
> 42 stations within 10 miles of downtown SF, sf! Two CNG in the city
> limits.
>
> And these are not sellers of industrial gases, they are fueling stations
> for vehicles.

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.

--
Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 08:32:16 -0700, Dan Abel > wrote:

> In article >,
> sf > wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 20:13:00 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > controlled-access highway?
> >
> > What the H*LL is a controlled-access highway? A payway?
>
> A freeway. I'm sure you've seen them. There are a few in California.
> You can not get on or off the freeway except on an on ramp or off ramp.
> There is a sign on every on ramp that says, "no pedestrians, bicycles or
> motor-driven cycles". Except for the ramps, there are fences to control
> access.

Who calls freeways "controlled-access highways"? Pompous Asses?

--
Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 11:53:16 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> sf wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 20:13:00 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> controlled-access highway?
> >
> > What the H*LL is a controlled-access highway? A payway?
> >
>
> AKA limited access highway. It is a road where the access is limited to
> specific locations, like ramps, as opposed to one that can be accesses
> directly from parking lots and driveways.

Is that lawyer speak?

--
Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

Krypsis wrote:
> On 26/06/2010 8:45 PM, 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?
>
> Let me guess!!! Electricity????
>
> Do I pass?
>
Well, if dropping it from dizzying heights doesn't break it, some form
of energy converted into electricity seems to be the only way when
starting off with water yes.

Unless someone has invented clever enough optics to focus sunlight in
/just/ the right way onto a jar of water to turn it into hydrogen and
oxygen, of course.

-j

On 6/24/2010 8:54 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> The Smart car looks startlingly small in person. You'd think it was a
> lightweight, electric car but it's not. At 1800 lb it seems awful
> heavy and why put in a gas engine in a micro car in this day and age?
>
> Korean manufacturer CT&T recently announced that it would build an
> electric car of even smaller dimensions in Hawaii. It's an interesting
> concept - build small assembly facilities throughout the US producing
> 10,000 or so cars a year. Expected price for the eZone electric
> vehicle starts at $8000. This belongs in the same category as the
> Hawaiian Grand Prix Indycar race - I'll believe it when I see it. :-)

China is working on electric cars. Would Americans buy them?

Becca

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

On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 11:17:49 -0500, Becca > wrote:
>
> China is working on electric cars. Would Americans buy them?
>
People will buy anything from China if it's cheap enough.


--
Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

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

sf wrote:
>
>>> What the H*LL is a controlled-access highway? A payway?
>> A freeway. I'm sure you've seen them. There are a few in California.
>> You can not get on or off the freeway except on an on ramp or off ramp.
>> There is a sign on every on ramp that says, "no pedestrians, bicycles or
>> motor-driven cycles". Except for the ramps, there are fences to control
>> access.
>
> Who calls freeways "controlled-access highways"? Pompous Asses?
>

I do. As stated before, I worked for the highways department and
controlled-access is a designation for a highway that has controlled
access. I may or may not be a pompous ass, but I have experience in the
fields of highway construction and maintenance, the standards that are
applied to varies classification and in enforcement. I think that gives
me some degree of expertise in the field, and I can assure that
"closed-access" is fairly standard nomenclature.

sf wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 11:53:16 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> sf wrote:
>>> On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 20:13:00 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> controlled-access highway?
>>> What the H*LL is a controlled-access highway? A payway?
>>>
>> AKA limited access highway. It is a road where the access is limited to
>> specific locations, like ramps, as opposed to one that can be accesses
>> directly from parking lots and driveways.
>
> Is that lawyer speak?
>

Not at all sf. It is a term that anyone around here should know when
they get their driver licence.

On 6/26/2010 10:39 AM, Krypsis wrote:
> On 26/06/2010 8:45 PM, George wrote:
>> On 6/25/2010 8:27 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On 6/25/2010 5:49 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>>>> On 6/25/2010 10:43 AM, Krypsis wrote:
>>>>> On 26/06/2010 4:23 AM, dsi1 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've heard that line since I was a little tacker! It isn't here yet
>>>>> and
>>>>> I doubt it ever will be. The hybrid compromise will be around for a
>>>>> long
>>>>> time yet and I know I won't be around to see widespread acceptance and
>>>>> use of full electric cars, even if I reach 100 years of age.
>>>>
>>>> Well, a lot would depend on what your current age is now, wouldn't it?
>>>> It's a rather odd attitude considering all the movement going on at
>>>> this
>>>> point in time. You must be confusing this with flying cars - those
>>>> won't
>>>> be coming out until at least 2017. :-)
>>>>
>>>> My guess is that a hundred years from now, people are going to find it
>>>> difficult to believe that we had to go to stations to fill up our cars
>>>> with such a dangerous, explosive, liquid fuel. The very idea will
>>>> probably scare them half to death - unless, of course, they're using
>>>> molten nuclear materials for their fuel. OTOH, they could be using
>>>> wolf/dog hybrids to power rubber wheeled sleds through a
>>>> post-apocalyptic landscape filled with zombies. :-)
>>>
>>> In other words people a hundred years from now will live in a smaller
>>> world where someone in Hartford doesn't date someone in New Haven, for
>>> example (electric cars don't have the range for that).
>>>
>>> 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?
>
> Let me guess!!! Electricity????
>
> Do I pass?

No, because you knew what my question meant.

>
> Krypsis
>
>

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. And you
did echo my comment about where would you get the electricity.

>
> 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.


> http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-gx/
>

On 6/25/2010 10:16 PM, Krypsis wrote:
> On 26/06/2010 10:13 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On 6/25/2010 4:41 PM, Krypsis wrote:
>>> On 26/06/2010 4:23 AM, sf wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 06:50:40 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/22/2010 6:47 PM, sf wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 18:28:21 -0400, Dave Smith
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As for the Smart cars..... I have seen the crash test videos and
>>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>> amazing how well they stand up to high speed crashes. They don't
>>>>>>> seem to
>>>>>>> have the energy absorbing crinkling that some cars have, but I don't
>>>>>>> think you need to worry about it imploding on impact.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you want to go for distance on the rebound, be my guest. I'll
>>>>>> stick with heavier cars for freeway driving. If all the other cars on
>>>>>> the road were just as small, I'd feel differently - but they aren't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you think that you need "heavier cars for freeway driving"? How
>>>>> does being on one kind of road require a different car than another?
>>>>>
>>>>> Personally I have an SUV and a motorcycle and I don't feel any
>>>>> safer on
>>>>> the Interstate in the SUV than I do on the bike. You're a lot less
>>>>> likely to get blindsided "on the highway" than you are "around town".
>>>>
>>>> Your perception of safety is different from mine.
>>>>
>>> And mine! I know too many people who are showing signs of their
>>> motorcycling days of their youth. In some, it's just a gammy leg, in
>>> others, full on quadriplegia.
>>>
>>> I "like" my safety cell when I'm moving along the highway at 100 KPH+
>>
>> But how many of those motorcyclists were injured on a controlled-access
>> highway?
>>
>> There is this strange perception that driving on a controlled-access
>> highway is somehow more "dangerous" than driving on surface streets. The
>> reality is that no matter what you're driving, you're more than twice as
>> likely to die (on a per vehicle mile basis) on a surface street than on
>> a controlled-access highway.
>
> Won't get any disagreement from me there! I remember back to my
> motorcycling days when the difference between riding with and without
> the headlight on made one hell of a difference to the number of
> "externally caused" close shaves I had. Quickly learned to always ride
> with the headlights on so I would be "seen" by drivers who were only
> looking out for cars. Note too that this was in an era when there were
> way fewer cars than now and controlled access highways were practically
> unheard of, at least in this country.
> Motorists only seem to see things large enough to be perceived as a
> threat to them.

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).

I used to think that cagers saw only things big enough to be a threat.
Then one day there were six of us with headlights on behind a huge
fluorescent yellow dump-truck which had flashing lights all over it, (I
mean this thing was big enough to threaten a _tank_) and this stupid
woman pulled out when the dump-truck was about 30 feet from the
intersection--the dump truck, with all 22 wheels locked, left the most
spectacular skidmark I have ever seen. Ever since then I've just
assumed that they were blind and that assumption has stood me in good stead.

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?!?!?!

> 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.
>
> BTW, the remains will be less than useful for donating anything after a
> slice and dice!
>
> Krypsis
>
>

On 6/26/2010 3:21 AM, sf wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 20:13:00 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> > wrote:
>
>> controlled-access highway?
>
> What the H*LL is a controlled-access highway? A payway?

A highway that you enter and exit only at specific access points, with
acceleration and decleration lanes at the exits. The Interstates are
typical controlled-access highways.

On 6/26/2010 12:12 PM, sf wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 08:32:16 -0700, Dan > wrote:
>
>> In >,
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 20:13:00 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> controlled-access highway?
>>>
>>> What the H*LL is a controlled-access highway? A payway?
>>
>> A freeway. I'm sure you've seen them. There are a few in California.
>> You can not get on or off the freeway except on an on ramp or off ramp.
>> There is a sign on every on ramp that says, "no pedestrians, bicycles or
>> motor-driven cycles". Except for the ramps, there are fences to control
>> access.
>
> Who calls freeways "controlled-access highways"? Pompous Asses?

Anybody who is publishing accident statistics for one thing.

On 6/26/2010 3:01 AM, sf wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 20:16:48 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> From the description it sounds like he's using a proper laboratory
>> instrument and not some piece of consumer crap.
>
> Why the f*ck bring it up here then? Who cares if it's not universally
> available? I don't.

Laboratory instrumentation is, aside from a few items that the
government has restricted due to the War on Drugs, "universally
available" for a price.

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?

On 6/26/2010 12:09 PM, sf wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 08:25:53 -0700, Dan > wrote:
>
>> In >,
>> > 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.
>>
>> http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/locator/stations/
>>
>> 42 stations within 10 miles of downtown SF, sf! Two CNG in the city
>> limits.
>>
>> And these are not sellers of industrial gases, they are fueling stations
>> for vehicles.
>
> 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.

On 6/26/2010 6:41 AM, 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.

If you consider the heat to avoid freezing in a Northern winter in a
vehicle that has very little thermal insulation to be "trivial".
Internal combustion engines give off about as much heat as they do
power, so providing heat is trivial. Electrics not so much. And when
batteries get cold they lose capacity. So here you are stuck in traffic
on the way home, you've already used up half your battery charge getting
to work in the morning, and now you're using it to run a resistance
heater and as it gets colder the capacity diminishes and pretty soon
you're freezing to death in the dark.

On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 11:33:19 -0500, 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
>
```````````
No little red wagon model?
http://www.gummylump.com/files/produ...wagon-22-2.jpg

http://www.blueberryforest.com/image...82-534x474.jpg

--
Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

On 6/26/2010 3:56 AM, dsi1 wrote:
> On 6/25/2010 2:27 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> In other words people a hundred years from now will live in a smaller
>> world where someone in Hartford doesn't date someone in New Haven, for
>> example (electric cars don't have the range for that).
>>
>> 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.
>
> In other words people in a hundred years from now will be driving
> carbureted, internal-combustion, piston engines? That's so groovy, man! :-)

I'm sure some will, just as some people today drive Model T Fords.

On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 12:53:49 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> I do. As stated before, I worked for the highways department and
> controlled-access is a designation for a highway that has controlled
> access. I may or may not be a pompous ass, but I have experience in the
> fields of highway construction and maintenance, the standards that are
> applied to varies classification and in enforcement. I think that gives
> me some degree of expertise in the field, and I can assure that
> "closed-access" is fairly standard nomenclature.

For cops and lawyers.

--
Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

On 6/26/2010 6:45 AM, George wrote:
> On 6/25/2010 8:27 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On 6/25/2010 5:49 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>>> On 6/25/2010 10:43 AM, Krypsis wrote:
>>>> On 26/06/2010 4:23 AM, dsi1 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.
>>>>
>>>> I've heard that line since I was a little tacker! It isn't here yet and
>>>> I doubt it ever will be. The hybrid compromise will be around for a
>>>> long
>>>> time yet and I know I won't be around to see widespread acceptance and
>>>> use of full electric cars, even if I reach 100 years of age.
>>>
>>> Well, a lot would depend on what your current age is now, wouldn't it?
>>> It's a rather odd attitude considering all the movement going on at this
>>> point in time. You must be confusing this with flying cars - those won't
>>> be coming out until at least 2017. :-)
>>>
>>> My guess is that a hundred years from now, people are going to find it
>>> difficult to believe that we had to go to stations to fill up our cars
>>> with such a dangerous, explosive, liquid fuel. The very idea will
>>> probably scare them half to death - unless, of course, they're using
>>> molten nuclear materials for their fuel. OTOH, they could be using
>>> wolf/dog hybrids to power rubber wheeled sleds through a
>>> post-apocalyptic landscape filled with zombies. :-)
>>
>> In other words people a hundred years from now will live in a smaller
>> world where someone in Hartford doesn't date someone in New Haven, for
>> example (electric cars don't have the range for that).
>>
>> 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?

Nuclear, solar, geothermal, whatever floats your boat. In fact this is
one area where solar would make a good deal of sense, since in hydrogen
production there's no need to store energy for a night time load, you
just shut down the works when the sun goes down.

However in the current hydrogen market "the usual method" is steam
reforming of natural gas.

On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 12:54:55 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> sf wrote:
> > On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 11:53:16 -0400, Dave Smith
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> sf wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 20:13:00 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> controlled-access highway?
> >>> What the H*LL is a controlled-access highway? A payway?
> >>>
> >> AKA limited access highway. It is a road where the access is limited to
> >> specific locations, like ramps, as opposed to one that can be accesses
> >> directly from parking lots and driveways.
> >
> > Is that lawyer speak?
> >
>
> Not at all sf. It is a term that anyone around here should know when
> they get their driver licence.

I've been driving since I was 16. That has never come up on a
driver's exam and it's certainly not used in every day conversation.
Maybe if I knew city planners or civil engineers I would know the
term.

--
Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

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".

> 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.

> 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.
>
>

On 6/25/2010 11:25 PM, Krypsis wrote:
> On 26/06/2010 1:07 PM, Andy wrote:
>> > 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.
>>>
>>> Krypsis
>>
>>
>> Krypsis,
>>
>> My boss from Adeliade, SA drove a Ute in his teen years. I don't recall
>> the model but he loved talking about it.
>
> We Aussies love our utes!! If you get a chance, come on down to our Ute
> Muster!!!
>
> http://www.deniutemuster.com.au/
>
> More utes on hand than you can shake a stick at!
>
> The muster just keeps getting bigger every year!
>>
>> It sounded like a truck to have, like I wanted a Corvette, [sigh] VW
>> Beetle.
>
> You lusted after a Beetle?? Ralph Nader would hate you!

And the Beetle-loving American public hated him right back. He never
recovered from that blunder. Attacking the Beetle when he did was as
stupid as attacking Mom, apple pie, and the Girl You Left Behind.

>> Meanwhile, I can't picture Australia with electric road trains. Recharge
>> every 50 kilometers, overnight!?? With a monster horn over the cab that
>> chirps?
>
> They are scary enough with noisy diesel engines. They could really sneak
> up on you with quiet electrics!
>
> Some of the longer ones really "wag" that last trailer. Not nice if
> you're heading in the opposite direction as yo can't see it for the dust
> kicked up by the rest. Golden rule, if you see a road train coming, pull
> over as far off the road as you can!
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Andy
>
> Krypsis

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?

On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 11:33:19 -0500, 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

This'll work:
http://www.northerntool.com/shop/too...3970_200413970

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.

--
Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

J. Clarke wrote:

>
> It's pretty hard to drive any car if you can't find the fuel. There was
> a time when your city didn't have a gas station you know. Things change.
>

The government department I worked for, transportation, was
experimenting with alternative fuels. Propane was a bust for us. A tank
of fuel only lasted a day or two on the job. While we were in the habit
of filling our vehicles everyday, in order to ensure they were ready to
go and to reduce condensation (in gas and diesel tanks), it was a PITA
to get propane because there were so few places to get it, and some of
them were not open at night. We had to go a long way out of our way.

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.
>


Is your area especially unique? Any town that has any sort of industrial
facilities will have propane and natural gas distributors.

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.

--
Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

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.

>

On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 13:12:37 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> wrote:

> On 6/26/2010 12:12 PM, sf wrote:
> > On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 08:32:16 -0700, Dan > wrote:
> >
> >> In >,
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 20:13:00 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> controlled-access highway?
> >>>
> >>> What the H*LL is a controlled-access highway? A payway?
> >>
> >> A freeway. I'm sure you've seen them. There are a few in California.
> >> You can not get on or off the freeway except on an on ramp or off ramp.
> >> There is a sign on every on ramp that says, "no pedestrians, bicycles or
> >> motor-driven cycles". Except for the ramps, there are fences to control
> >> access.
> >
> > Who calls freeways "controlled-access highways"? Pompous Asses?
>
> Anybody who is publishing accident statistics for one thing.
>
Lawyer talk for another branch of the industry.

--
Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 13:11:43 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> wrote:

> On 6/26/2010 3:21 AM, sf wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 20:13:00 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> controlled-access highway?
> >
> > What the H*LL is a controlled-access highway? A payway?
>
> A highway that you enter and exit only at specific access points, with
> acceleration and decleration lanes at the exits. The Interstates are
> typical controlled-access highways.
>
thanks

--
Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

"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.

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

On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 14:05:17 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>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.
>>
>
>
>Is your area especially unique? Any town that has any sort of industrial
>facilities will have propane and natural gas distributors.

Also industrial gases; welding/cutting, medical gasses.

On 6/26/2010 12:57 PM, 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. And you
> did echo my comment about where would you get the electricity.
>
>>
>> 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.

Nobody is suggesting that hydrogen is efficient, only that it's more
convenient than the alternatives.
>
>
>> http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-gx/
>>
>

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.

--
Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.