People who claim 'they could build a 400mpg Hybrid' amuse me.
#226
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: People who claim 'they could build a 400mpg Hybrid' amuse me.
In article <7i5et2dmlvqv4upkvg8eiiptq9rpoplp11@4ax.com>,
Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On 16 Feb 2007 03:38:54 -0800, "SFTVratings"
> <SFTVratings_troy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVr...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> On 14 Feb 2007 09:47:28 -0800, "SFTVratings"
> >> >On Feb 14, 10:18 am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >> >> SFTVratings_t...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >> > .......If it WERE possible to build a 400 MPG civic
> >> >> > or Prius, Honda or Toyota or Ford would would already be
> >> >> > doing it (and bragging about it on the television).
> >>
> >> >> They can do it easily. They just have to leave the electricity to charge
> >> >> the plug-in hybrid's batteries out of the equation.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >That's called cheating.
> >>
> >> Sort of, but it is not a meaningless fact. The electricity for the
> >> plug-in may be generated without burning fossil fuel. ....
> >
> >
> >
> >Hello Gordon,
> >
> >I'm sorry but that's still irrelevant. The topic was achieving an
> >energy (key word) efficiency of 400 mpg, regardless if you use
> >gasoline, or electric, or solar for your source.
>
> Well, that's not specified in the original post. More to the point,
> that is not what anyone is claiming. (At least not anyone who knows
> what they are talking about - the builders/modifiers of these vehicles
> for instance. If the press is reporting otherwise, it is probably due
> to reporters who don't know a kilowatt-hour from a diode.)
>
> >In your message, you said nuclear. Well, you input X amount of
> >nuclear kilowatts per day into your car. Now convert the kilowatts to
> >the equivalent gasoline value (gallons). Does your nuclear-powered EV
> >exceed 400 miles per gallon-equivalent? No. It doesn't even come
> >close to the goal. (Most EVs average only 60-70 mpg.)
>
> Of course not. Anything resembling a modern road car is never going
> to have energy efficiency equivalent to 400 mpg of gasoline. But
> again, no knowledgeable person is claiming that.
>
> >Also:
> >
> >It's worth nothing that solar & nuclear sources DO require fossil
> >fuels. It requires burning fossil fuels to (1) dig the materials out
> >of the ground and (2) build the panel or the plant. Everything we do
> >has an impact on the environment. That's why ACEEE.org rated the EV1
> >as no cleaner than a Prius or Civic Hybrid. (The cleanest cars, by a
> >wide margin, are the natural-gas civic and the Insight.)
>
> I am a little puzzled by how an all-electric car would not be cleaner
> than a hybrid. I suspect there are some assumptions about the source
> of energy for the power station. Many run on coal so this may not be
> cleaner. As for nuclear, wind, solar, hydro, etc. the assumptions
> could vary radically. How do you rate nuclear waste, for example?
> Properly contained it has zero effect on the environment. If it
> leaks, it could be a disaster. However, I would guess that the fossil
> fuel needed to get it into the reactor is negligible.
>
> You are correct that there will never be a zero-impact car. Even an
> electric running on solar power is probably worse overall than an
> electric commuter train.
Gordon, allow me to introduce you to Troy Heagy, performance troll and
the self styled "most annoying man on usenet"
Troy posts under at least half a dozen names (see below) and his game is
to create a thread that might otherwise be interesting, and introduce a
deliberate mistake into it, and watch it fall apart with people arguing
about his mistake instead the actual topic.
He's been busted in rec.arts.tv so many times that he's expanding his
net to other groups, like mostly sci-fi like Farscape, and autmobile
ones like these. But he sets the cross posts to rec.arts.tv to show
that he's still managing to annoy us here.
He'll now scream that we're haters, and are stalking him, etc., etc.,
etc., and probably threaten legal action, yadda yadda yadda.
Oh, and he sends death threats to people that expose him like this, and
then will claim they've been sending HIM death threats, and writing his
boss and trying to get him fired, blah blah blah.
Killfile Troy Heagy in all (s)he-its many incarnations now:
Troy.Heagy@gmail.com,videonovels@yahoo.com
videonovels2010@yahoo.com,telenovels...ddad@yahoo.com
**DON'T FORGET THE NEWEST ONE>>> SFTVratings_troy@yahoo.com
Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On 16 Feb 2007 03:38:54 -0800, "SFTVratings"
> <SFTVratings_troy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVr...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> On 14 Feb 2007 09:47:28 -0800, "SFTVratings"
> >> >On Feb 14, 10:18 am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >> >> SFTVratings_t...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >> > .......If it WERE possible to build a 400 MPG civic
> >> >> > or Prius, Honda or Toyota or Ford would would already be
> >> >> > doing it (and bragging about it on the television).
> >>
> >> >> They can do it easily. They just have to leave the electricity to charge
> >> >> the plug-in hybrid's batteries out of the equation.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >That's called cheating.
> >>
> >> Sort of, but it is not a meaningless fact. The electricity for the
> >> plug-in may be generated without burning fossil fuel. ....
> >
> >
> >
> >Hello Gordon,
> >
> >I'm sorry but that's still irrelevant. The topic was achieving an
> >energy (key word) efficiency of 400 mpg, regardless if you use
> >gasoline, or electric, or solar for your source.
>
> Well, that's not specified in the original post. More to the point,
> that is not what anyone is claiming. (At least not anyone who knows
> what they are talking about - the builders/modifiers of these vehicles
> for instance. If the press is reporting otherwise, it is probably due
> to reporters who don't know a kilowatt-hour from a diode.)
>
> >In your message, you said nuclear. Well, you input X amount of
> >nuclear kilowatts per day into your car. Now convert the kilowatts to
> >the equivalent gasoline value (gallons). Does your nuclear-powered EV
> >exceed 400 miles per gallon-equivalent? No. It doesn't even come
> >close to the goal. (Most EVs average only 60-70 mpg.)
>
> Of course not. Anything resembling a modern road car is never going
> to have energy efficiency equivalent to 400 mpg of gasoline. But
> again, no knowledgeable person is claiming that.
>
> >Also:
> >
> >It's worth nothing that solar & nuclear sources DO require fossil
> >fuels. It requires burning fossil fuels to (1) dig the materials out
> >of the ground and (2) build the panel or the plant. Everything we do
> >has an impact on the environment. That's why ACEEE.org rated the EV1
> >as no cleaner than a Prius or Civic Hybrid. (The cleanest cars, by a
> >wide margin, are the natural-gas civic and the Insight.)
>
> I am a little puzzled by how an all-electric car would not be cleaner
> than a hybrid. I suspect there are some assumptions about the source
> of energy for the power station. Many run on coal so this may not be
> cleaner. As for nuclear, wind, solar, hydro, etc. the assumptions
> could vary radically. How do you rate nuclear waste, for example?
> Properly contained it has zero effect on the environment. If it
> leaks, it could be a disaster. However, I would guess that the fossil
> fuel needed to get it into the reactor is negligible.
>
> You are correct that there will never be a zero-impact car. Even an
> electric running on solar power is probably worse overall than an
> electric commuter train.
Gordon, allow me to introduce you to Troy Heagy, performance troll and
the self styled "most annoying man on usenet"
Troy posts under at least half a dozen names (see below) and his game is
to create a thread that might otherwise be interesting, and introduce a
deliberate mistake into it, and watch it fall apart with people arguing
about his mistake instead the actual topic.
He's been busted in rec.arts.tv so many times that he's expanding his
net to other groups, like mostly sci-fi like Farscape, and autmobile
ones like these. But he sets the cross posts to rec.arts.tv to show
that he's still managing to annoy us here.
He'll now scream that we're haters, and are stalking him, etc., etc.,
etc., and probably threaten legal action, yadda yadda yadda.
Oh, and he sends death threats to people that expose him like this, and
then will claim they've been sending HIM death threats, and writing his
boss and trying to get him fired, blah blah blah.
Killfile Troy Heagy in all (s)he-its many incarnations now:
Troy.Heagy@gmail.com,videonovels@yahoo.com
videonovels2010@yahoo.com,telenovels...ddad@yahoo.com
**DON'T FORGET THE NEWEST ONE>>> SFTVratings_troy@yahoo.com
#227
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: People who claim 'they could build a 400mpg Hybrid' amuse me.
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 09:03:17 -0600, Gordon McGrew wrote:
> However, I would guess that the fossil fuel needed to get it
> into the reactor is negligible.
The uranium must be mined using conventional equipment and processed into
a form acceptable for use in the reactor.
> However, I would guess that the fossil fuel needed to get it
> into the reactor is negligible.
The uranium must be mined using conventional equipment and processed into
a form acceptable for use in the reactor.
#228
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: People who claim 'they could build a 400mpg Hybrid' amuse me.
"Wrongway Napolitano" <dont@bother.nul> wrote in message
newsan.2007.02.17.16.14.43.651829@bother.nul...
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 09:03:17 -0600, Gordon McGrew wrote:
>
>> However, I would guess that the fossil fuel needed to get it
>> into the reactor is negligible.
>
> The uranium must be mined using conventional equipment and processed into
> a form acceptable for use in the reactor.
And don't forget the several tons of lead shielding needed to prevent
radiation poisioning. This may impact the efficiency of the vehicle, not to
mention add more than a few dollars to the price of the vehicle.
Jeff
#229
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: People who claim 'they could build a 400mpg Hybrid' amuse me.
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 15:10:49 GMT, "Jeff" <news@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> I personally would rather see nuclear powered cars.
>
>Yet, right. There would be a major issue with radiation poisoning as well as
> issues, to say the least.
Poisoning? The nuclear fuel can easily be placed in containers which
are bullet-proof even explosive-proof. These materials do exist. As
for terrorism, how are you going to extract the nuclear material?
The nuclear material for a power plant on a car would not be of the
grade or type to build any bomb worth worrying about.
You mention the fear of terrorism but yet we have gasoline everywhere.
I could build a very deadly bomb with gasoline.
You can also produce gunpowder, you don't even need to buy it and be
worried about "questions" from the dealer.
C-4 can be made very easily. Many types of chemical agents can be made
easily.
I'm more worried about the going into a mall with a tractor
trailer of gasoline or hydrogen, aren't you?
You could also regulate the nuclear powered cars to the point that no
matter where you were the car would be monitored via gps.
Even nuclear power plants are required to sustain a certain amount of
explosive yield. Simply dropping a 500 pound bomb on one wouldn't
endanger anyone except the nuclear power plant workers.
We have radioactive material in things like smoke detectors and other
items, even some paint. With enough time someone could build a small
nuke, but are you worried about it?
If we went 100% Nuclear powered for cars we would reduce the
production of gasoline by 90% and thus reduce the need to import oil.
As far as power, you could easily govern the cars to only have a
maximum speed.
Go ask a truck driver. Many tractor trailer companies govern their
trucks to only do 70 mph. The engine would easily allow them to do
well over 100 mph but it's a governed system. Same could be done with
a nuclear powered car.
How about this: Couldn't we just test the idea? Maybe produce 100 cars
and let certain people test them for a few weeks and see how things
go? Why must we dismiss an idea without even a test run?
thanks for your time.
>> I personally would rather see nuclear powered cars.
>
>Yet, right. There would be a major issue with radiation poisoning as well as
> issues, to say the least.
Poisoning? The nuclear fuel can easily be placed in containers which
are bullet-proof even explosive-proof. These materials do exist. As
for terrorism, how are you going to extract the nuclear material?
The nuclear material for a power plant on a car would not be of the
grade or type to build any bomb worth worrying about.
You mention the fear of terrorism but yet we have gasoline everywhere.
I could build a very deadly bomb with gasoline.
You can also produce gunpowder, you don't even need to buy it and be
worried about "questions" from the dealer.
C-4 can be made very easily. Many types of chemical agents can be made
easily.
I'm more worried about the going into a mall with a tractor
trailer of gasoline or hydrogen, aren't you?
You could also regulate the nuclear powered cars to the point that no
matter where you were the car would be monitored via gps.
Even nuclear power plants are required to sustain a certain amount of
explosive yield. Simply dropping a 500 pound bomb on one wouldn't
endanger anyone except the nuclear power plant workers.
We have radioactive material in things like smoke detectors and other
items, even some paint. With enough time someone could build a small
nuke, but are you worried about it?
If we went 100% Nuclear powered for cars we would reduce the
production of gasoline by 90% and thus reduce the need to import oil.
As far as power, you could easily govern the cars to only have a
maximum speed.
Go ask a truck driver. Many tractor trailer companies govern their
trucks to only do 70 mph. The engine would easily allow them to do
well over 100 mph but it's a governed system. Same could be done with
a nuclear powered car.
How about this: Couldn't we just test the idea? Maybe produce 100 cars
and let certain people test them for a few weeks and see how things
go? Why must we dismiss an idea without even a test run?
thanks for your time.
#230
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: People who claim 'they could build a 400mpg Hybrid' amuse me.
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 15:57:13 -0500, wrote:
> Poisoning? The nuclear fuel can easily be placed in containers which are
> bullet-proof even explosive-proof. These materials do exist. As for
> terrorism, how are you going to extract the nuclear material?
>
> The nuclear material for a power plant on a car would not be of the grade
> or type to build any bomb worth worrying about.
Do tell, just *how* are you going to build a power plant of sufficient
size and weight to power a personal passenger vehicle?
How do you propose to extract the energy from the nuclear material?
Do you know how much fissionable material it takes to sustain a nuclear
reaction?
Do you know how big and heavy your "nuclear fuel container" will have to
be? How much shielding will be required to protect people from the
radiation?
How do you propose to cool this power plant?
How will you protect against coolant leaks?
How complex will the control systems have to be? Safety systems? How much
weight and size will they add to the vehicle?
Using a nuclear power plant in a huge tonnage vehicle such as a submarine
or aircraft carrier is one thing, a personal passenger is something else
entirely.
If it were even remotely feasible to power a relatively small land vehicle
in that manner the military would be all over it. Maintaining supply lines
for fuel to power tanks and other vehicles is a huge
consideration in engaging in military campaigns.
> Poisoning? The nuclear fuel can easily be placed in containers which are
> bullet-proof even explosive-proof. These materials do exist. As for
> terrorism, how are you going to extract the nuclear material?
>
> The nuclear material for a power plant on a car would not be of the grade
> or type to build any bomb worth worrying about.
Do tell, just *how* are you going to build a power plant of sufficient
size and weight to power a personal passenger vehicle?
How do you propose to extract the energy from the nuclear material?
Do you know how much fissionable material it takes to sustain a nuclear
reaction?
Do you know how big and heavy your "nuclear fuel container" will have to
be? How much shielding will be required to protect people from the
radiation?
How do you propose to cool this power plant?
How will you protect against coolant leaks?
How complex will the control systems have to be? Safety systems? How much
weight and size will they add to the vehicle?
Using a nuclear power plant in a huge tonnage vehicle such as a submarine
or aircraft carrier is one thing, a personal passenger is something else
entirely.
If it were even remotely feasible to power a relatively small land vehicle
in that manner the military would be all over it. Maintaining supply lines
for fuel to power tanks and other vehicles is a huge
consideration in engaging in military campaigns.
#231
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: People who claim 'they could build a 400mpg Hybrid' amuse me.
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 16:14:53 GMT, Wrongway Napolitano
<dont@bother.nul> wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 09:03:17 -0600, Gordon McGrew wrote:
>
>> However, I would guess that the fossil fuel needed to get it
>> into the reactor is negligible.
>
>The uranium must be mined using conventional equipment and processed into
>a form acceptable for use in the reactor.
And, as I said, the energy used in that process is negligible compared
to the amount of energy which can be derived from the nuclear fuel
produced.
<dont@bother.nul> wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 09:03:17 -0600, Gordon McGrew wrote:
>
>> However, I would guess that the fossil fuel needed to get it
>> into the reactor is negligible.
>
>The uranium must be mined using conventional equipment and processed into
>a form acceptable for use in the reactor.
And, as I said, the energy used in that process is negligible compared
to the amount of energy which can be derived from the nuclear fuel
produced.
#232
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: People who claim 'they could build a 400mpg Hybrid' amuse me.
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 16:20:14 GMT, "Jeff" <news@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>"Wrongway Napolitano" <dont@bother.nul> wrote in message
>newsan.2007.02.17.16.14.43.651829@bother.nul. ..
>> On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 09:03:17 -0600, Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>
>>> However, I would guess that the fossil fuel needed to get it
>>> into the reactor is negligible.
>>
>> The uranium must be mined using conventional equipment and processed into
>> a form acceptable for use in the reactor.
>
>And don't forget the several tons of lead shielding needed to prevent
>radiation poisioning. This may impact the efficiency of the vehicle, not to
>mention add more than a few dollars to the price of the vehicle.
>
>Jeff
I am talking about a nuclear power plant which generates electricity
to be stored in the batteries of an electric car. There is no nuclear
fuel on board the car. That would be stupid.
>
>"Wrongway Napolitano" <dont@bother.nul> wrote in message
>newsan.2007.02.17.16.14.43.651829@bother.nul. ..
>> On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 09:03:17 -0600, Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>
>>> However, I would guess that the fossil fuel needed to get it
>>> into the reactor is negligible.
>>
>> The uranium must be mined using conventional equipment and processed into
>> a form acceptable for use in the reactor.
>
>And don't forget the several tons of lead shielding needed to prevent
>radiation poisioning. This may impact the efficiency of the vehicle, not to
>mention add more than a few dollars to the price of the vehicle.
>
>Jeff
I am talking about a nuclear power plant which generates electricity
to be stored in the batteries of an electric car. There is no nuclear
fuel on board the car. That would be stupid.
#233
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: People who claim 'they could build a 400mpg Hybrid' amuse me.
"Bob Brown" <.> wrote in message
news:s93et2hphamlua6sf20bbnior8nl8li64h@bbb.org...
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 22:39:50 GMT, "Geoff" <news@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>Alternatives: Walk, take bus or subway, ride a bike, telecommute.
>
> If you were willing to only do the following first.
> 1. Do the posted speed limits
> 2. Never exceed 45-50 mph
> 3. Gently accelerate [no jack-rabbit starts]
> 4. Only use Premium Gasoline.
The BTU content in high-octane fuel is the same as in regualar octane fuel.
Higher octane fuel allows some engines to run more efficiently, but if one
is thinking in terms from extracting the crude out of the ground to getting
burned inthe engine, high octane probably does not provide a net benefit to
the environment.
> 5. Get a tune up and oil change every 5K miles.
Oil change every 5k miles, yes, getting as tune-up every 5 K miles would be
a waste of parts and resources. It would take more energy to produce the
spark plugs, wires, etc. than the efficieny gained in the engine.
--
Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)
#234
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: People who claim 'they could build a 400mpg Hybrid' amuse me.
"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:rutgt2h9i0t8pv9ohia3sf21ma10d0kpas@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 16:20:14 GMT, "Jeff" <news@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Wrongway Napolitano" <dont@bother.nul> wrote in message
>>newsan.2007.02.17.16.14.43.651829@bother.nul.. .
>>> On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 09:03:17 -0600, Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>>
>>>> However, I would guess that the fossil fuel needed to get it
>>>> into the reactor is negligible.
>>>
>>> The uranium must be mined using conventional equipment and processed
>>> into
>>> a form acceptable for use in the reactor.
>>
>>And don't forget the several tons of lead shielding needed to prevent
>>radiation poisioning. This may impact the efficiency of the vehicle, not
>>to
>>mention add more than a few dollars to the price of the vehicle.
>>
>>Jeff
>
> I am talking about a nuclear power plant which generates electricity
> to be stored in the batteries of an electric car. There is no nuclear
> fuel on board the car. That would be stupid.
All you need to do to get started is get people to pay for 300 or so nuclear
power plants to replace the plants that use fossil fuel.
Jeff
#235
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: People who claim 'they could build a 400mpg Hybrid' amuse me.
Wrongway Napolitano wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 15:57:13 -0500, wrote:
>
>
> > Poisoning? The nuclear fuel can easily be placed in containers which are
> > bullet-proof even explosive-proof. These materials do exist. As for
> > terrorism, how are you going to extract the nuclear material?
> > The nuclear material for a power plant on a car would not be of the grade
> > or type to build any bomb worth worrying about.
>
> Do tell, just *how* are you going to build a power plant of sufficient
> size and weight to power a personal passenger vehicle?
I'm curious how such an animal would work, if it existed. I imagine
it would have the same flaw as a Steam Engine or a Hydrogen Fuel Cell:
- long warmup time.
If you hop into a hydrogen fuel cell car, you have to wait 20-30
minutes for the cell to "warm up" and develop enough power to move the
car. I imagine a nuclear-powered car, being essentially a steam
engine, would have the exact same flaw.
>
> How do you propose to extract the energy from the nuclear material?
>
> Do you know how much fissionable material it takes to sustain a nuclear
> reaction?
>
> Do you know how big and heavy your "nuclear fuel container" will have to
> be? How much shielding will be required to protect people from the
> radiation?
>
> How do you propose to cool this power plant?
>
> How will you protect against coolant leaks?
>
> How complex will the control systems have to be? Safety systems? How much
> weight and size will they add to the vehicle?
>
> Using a nuclear power plant in a huge tonnage vehicle such as a submarine
> or aircraft carrier is one thing, a personal passenger is something else
> entirely.
>
> If it were even remotely feasible to power a relatively small land vehicle
> in that manner the military would be all over it. Maintaining supply lines
> for fuel to power tanks and other vehicles is a huge
> consideration in engaging in military campaigns.
#236
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: People who claim 'they could build a 400mpg Hybrid' amuse me.
On Feb 14, 4:13 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Culture: We have the right to travel anywhere in the U.S. freely. Some
> people think this means we have the right to drive cars. Wrong. We need
> driving tests that are almost impossible to pass. If you fail, not only
> don't you get a license, but you're not allowed to own a car.....
Then they'd probably build horse-drawn carriages like the Amish-
americans. (Who do NOT need a license to use the roads.) You take
away a person's car, they'll find another way to get around. Like
wagons.
As for the previous poster who said, "We are not any better than the
1960's": That's not technically true. Cars have improved, not in
efficiency but in cleanliness. A modern car outputs only 0.01% as
many poisons as a car of the 60's.
>
> Culture: We have the right to travel anywhere in the U.S. freely. Some
> people think this means we have the right to drive cars. Wrong. We need
> driving tests that are almost impossible to pass. If you fail, not only
> don't you get a license, but you're not allowed to own a car.....
Then they'd probably build horse-drawn carriages like the Amish-
americans. (Who do NOT need a license to use the roads.) You take
away a person's car, they'll find another way to get around. Like
wagons.
As for the previous poster who said, "We are not any better than the
1960's": That's not technically true. Cars have improved, not in
efficiency but in cleanliness. A modern car outputs only 0.01% as
many poisons as a car of the 60's.
#237
Guest
Posts: n/a
QRe: People who claim 'they could build a 400mpg Hybrid' amuse me.
"SFTVratings" <SFTVratings_troy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1171905743.968300.141520@k78g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
<...>
> I'm curious how such an animal would work, if it existed. I imagine
> it would have the same flaw as a Steam Engine or a Hydrogen Fuel Cell:
>
> - long warmup time.
>
> If you hop into a hydrogen fuel cell car, you have to wait 20-30
> minutes for the cell to "warm up" and develop enough power to move the
> car. I imagine a nuclear-powered car, being essentially a steam
> engine, would have the exact same flaw.
They have these neat things called "batteries" that are able to store
electrical energy. My computer has one. And even my old 386sx computer from
about 20 years ago had one. You can use batteries to store electricity from
the fuel cell while it is warming as well as to meet high-demands, like
passing or going over hills. The batteries also can be used to store
electricity converted from kinetic energy when the car is slowing down, as
hybrids do today. This is problematic, because there is no infrastructure in
place to support hydrogen fueling of the cars and there are not yet
efficient fuel cells that burn hydrocarbons, like gasolines, yet.
Nuclear generators don't have to use steam. They can use thermoelectric
generators like they do in spacecraft, especially spacecraft that travel to
the outer planets, where the amount of sunlight reaching them is much less
than the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth. The ones in space can
produce around 300 W each. You would have to use batteries store this
energy, becaues using even ten of these units (3 kW) is nowhere near enough
to power a car (3 kW is about 4 HP). This leads to several problems, like
getting enough of the right source of energy (plutonium 210), safety issues
with having radioactivity on board, issues related to terrorists (like
terrorists crush the plutonium and putting the dust into a convential bomb
to contaminate a wide area), as well as radiactivty disposal issues. In
addition, if the unit is a steam unit, you will run into a radiation problem
whenever there is a steam leak. And that's not something most mechanics want
to take. Quite frankly, it make more sense to me to use more commonly used
ways to convert radient energy to electricity (i.e., solar panels) in the
electrical grid, and use the electrical grid to charge cars. Optionally, you
can develop solar panels that bend, so you can cover your car with them.
Jeff
#238
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: People who claim 'they could build a 400mpg Hybrid' amuse me.
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 06:41:43 GMT, Just Facts <Jfact@intnet.wrld>
wrote:
>I'll bet the university engineers could do it with a 200 lb. 2 ft. high
>car.
I was going to suggest something about 200 times smaller, or maybe a
(small) pumpkin pulled by white mice who could probably go just about
400 miles on a gallon of Nutrisystems before dropping dead, but not
before California gave them clearance to use the carpool lanes!
J.
wrote:
>I'll bet the university engineers could do it with a 200 lb. 2 ft. high
>car.
I was going to suggest something about 200 times smaller, or maybe a
(small) pumpkin pulled by white mice who could probably go just about
400 miles on a gallon of Nutrisystems before dropping dead, but not
before California gave them clearance to use the carpool lanes!
J.
#239
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: People who claim 'they could build a 400mpg Hybrid' amuse me.
In article <l0FAh.2787$ya1.1306@news02.roc.ny>,
"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> said:
> In the original Star Trek program, people would use these little
> data storage things the size of small cookies. What did you think
> about that idea when you saw it?
I wondered how they could tell which end was which, or which side
was up, on those unmarked blocks. Maybe it didn't matter -- the
read/write receptacle could handle the things in any orientation.
--
William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com>
"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> said:
> In the original Star Trek program, people would use these little
> data storage things the size of small cookies. What did you think
> about that idea when you saw it?
I wondered how they could tell which end was which, or which side
was up, on those unmarked blocks. Maybe it didn't matter -- the
read/write receptacle could handle the things in any orientation.
--
William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com>
#240
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: People who claim 'they could build a 400mpg Hybrid' amuse me.
"William December Starr" <wdstarr@panix.com> wrote in message
news:erd1dl$qso$1@panix1.panix.com...
> In article <l0FAh.2787$ya1.1306@news02.roc.ny>,
> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> said:
>
>> In the original Star Trek program, people would use these little
>> data storage things the size of small cookies. What did you think
>> about that idea when you saw it?
>
> I wondered how they could tell which end was which, or which side
> was up, on those unmarked blocks. Maybe it didn't matter -- the
> read/write receptacle could handle the things in any orientation.
I remember watching reruns in the mid 70s. Scottie said he would like to get
a look at the tranisters on a spaceship from earth the 1990s. I had every
little understanding of computers, but I remember thinking to myself that
transiters are already being replaced with chips. Of course, i didn't
understand that chips had transisters on them, though.
Jeff
> --
> William December Starr <wdstarr@panix.com>
>