[fizzissist]

The kind moderator will please take note that my post has been edited to remove any vestige of personal interpretation.

With the understanding that when someone uses the term "you" and directs it at my nationality, it would seem reasonable to interpret as pretty personal?

In any case, glad to see someone is actually reading this dirt clod exchange!

[ynneb]

Benny where were you many posts back when jhowelb referrred to me with a comment that I was so full of it I stank.

Methinks you are not apply your standards completely evenly.

Geof, I issued a general warning to no one in particular.
It is impossible to read every post that happens in this forum.
If there is something that is offensive ALWAYS press the report post link.

Methinks you could do that.

[dynosor]

I see on the Yahoo home page news that in the good ol' USof A the Duggar family, from way down in Arkansas have just "celebrated" their "EIGHTEENTH" holy helll, I kid thee not, eighteenth new arrival, and Jim Bob, buggger me dead, has announced proudly that he would be looking forward to many more, God willing!

Do I have to go on, words almost fail me, can't you cockroaches see reason?

The solution to your problems is to start at the beginning and PLAN your life, (very hard for most cockroaches to do)......

Ian old chap, you are not seriously suggesting that the Dugger family is representative of the average American?

http://www.duggarfamily.com/index.html

[handlewanker]

Dyno, not at all, it was the way you'all looked up to their achievments instead of askance.

I was stunned by the husband's comments, but it does show you that there are some people out there, and I might add, "from the better educated and enlightened part of the world", that should know better.

It might seem that they are well off, and see no reason to heed the concern that a lot of eminent bodies are voicing as regards to over population.

Perhaps YOU could give YOUR views on the subject that I mentioned and tell us what your opinion is, or are you not going to rise to the bait and just sit on the fence like a good little Liberal, or is it a good ol' little Democrat, or perhaps a right good Republican, I don't know what difference is or what it would make, but come along old chap,let's have some viewpoint from you, where do you stand in this situation?

As for me, I like Australia, we had to increase our migrant intake because the home population wasn't increasing to any large degree, it's got that naieve sense of innocence that some people just grow fond of, and of course the people would bend over backwards to help out a mate, that's life, and if you think that's bad, it only reinforces my point of view that you lot have stuffed up bonza, and now the world is gonna screw ya buddy.

But where does this leave us as regards to the air/electric car debate thingy.

I can tell you now that as a retired engineer, that is a guy that drives the engine, (in UK parlance), as opposed to the guy that goes to Uni and gets a degree that enables him/her to tell others how to do it.

I fully support the notion that when all things are equal the simplest way is always the best.

I take you back a century, to 1910, when the Royal Navy held a review of it's mighty battlefleet, even Kaiser Wilhelm was there (and a Japanese admiral or two) seeing as how he was a direct relation of Queen victoria.

When the review was at a close it became apparent that the mighty fleet was only able to proceed at the rate of the slowest ship, due to the fact that they were powered by reciprocating triple and quadruple expansion steam engines, that were notoriusly able to break down and throw a piston out the side of the block if pressed too hard.

The then Lord Fischer, head of the admiralty, at the stroke of a pen, obsoleted the major part of the fleet and placed orders for a new and revolutionary type of battle ship, actually designed and formulated by an Italian designer, called The Dreadnought, which gave it's name to a class, and in itself became obsolete shortly after completing it's sea trials.

The rest is history, and for those that would like to read about the rise and history of the modern battleship it is documented in a book running to 268 pages called simply Dreadnought by Richard Hough published in UK by Patrick Stephens P/l circa 1964.

The fact is the Dreadnought was powered by steam turbines, which as most people know is just a set of angled blades on a rotor revolving in a closed drum with high pressure steam impinging on them at very high speed.

So the simplicity, relatively speaking, of the steam turbine gives you a power plant with just one moving part in it, as opposed to the myriad of bits and pieces of the "up and downers" that hark from the days of Trevithick, Stephenson, Murdock and co.

A turbine revolving at high speed is similar to an electric motor revolving at high speed, (just one moving part), and requires the same reduction drive to extract the torque necessary to drive the rear end.

When you try to make an air motor perform in the same way, you are up against the problem in steam engines of "exhausting at boiler pressure", suffered by the simple steam engine, unless you have a variable cut off and compound cylinders exhausting to a condenser that allows the waste steam to exhaust to a vacuum.

The practicallity of the situation is when you can deliver the required package to a customer, who does not or cares not how the wheels go round, as long as they do go round, whether or not it is by air or electricity or petrol.

The stage is set, the contenders are on their marks, who will win?

Who knows, when all it takes is some governing body to intervene with vested interests, then it's money for old rope, as the outcome is inevitable.

In that case you'd better have a crystal ball or someone on the inside that can "advise" you where to place your money.

When I was a lad, in the 50's, (in South Africa), ALL our public transport busses were electric, (trolly busses), powered by two overhead wires and single decker and double decker busses with two poles from the roof contacting the wires.

Today even our train system in Melbourne is powered by Electric overhead wire with diesel being used for interstate etc.

Whichever system has the best infrastructure does not mean it will supply the needs of the coming generations, it is the system that the governing body can extract revenue from and control the easiest that will be allowed to survive.

I cannot see the air motor being a winner, even though it has lots of bells and whistles, due to the fact that there are too many intermediate stages in the power storage production, and most importantly too many moving parts.

However if it was to be an air turbine motor, (picture a die grinder), that was developed to be really economical, then I would say that it has another chance, albeit a slim one.

To sum up, I don't think you can beat a photo array that directly charges a battery pack in the vehicle, and supplies enough power during the day for at least the daily useage, it just needs a photo panel big enough to supply the grunt in the worst conditions, much easier to plug into the wall socket where all that has been done somewhere else at a more efficient rate.
Ian.

[Mazaholic]

Handlewanker,

Your input on the air motor looks impressive and it almost makes sense, except for a little fact about turbines that your overlooking.
There is a reason turbines aren't used for normal transportation.
They are inefficient for everyday driving.
Turbines are only efficient at high RPMs and do not respond well when asked to perform at a wide range of RPMs.
In short...The turbine is not the best choice in this application.
I don't think ship technology will help.

[fizzissist]

handlewanker post #2995:

The whole point I made some time back was this, WE'VE GOT TOO MANY PEOPLE FOLKS,
that means TOO MANY, do I make myself clear, or are you all so far up yourselves you can't see daylight?

handlewanker post #3024:

As for me, I like Australia, we had to increase our migrant intake because the home population wasn't increasing to any large degree,
Ian.

He doesn't mention or offer explanation for the $2300 baby bonus.

Australia is PAYING to increase the planet's population (estimated to surpass 6.66Billion today!), and on the reasonable assumption he votes.....
....that would make anyone who votes in Australia a hypocrite for saying we need to reduce the world's population while simultaneously paying to enlarge it.

It should be noted that Dugger is an individual, Australia is a nation.

[Geof]

.....He doesn't mention or offer explanation for the $2300 baby bonus......

You are tilting at windmills. A lot of countries promote procreation, either with direct payments for new borns, monthly baby bonuses up to a certain age, or tax deductions/credits.

This is part of the problem with our society/economic system, us old farts need a younger, working population, to pay into pension plans that we draw on (soon); the whole system is predicated on growth.

But growth in closed systems cannot continue endlessly, eventually the supply of energy and/or nutrients runs out and the population crashes. I made the point that if the population is not controlled there will be a horrendous die off some time in the future. Actually I am not alone in this opinion; get a copy of the April 5-12 New Scientist, the one with the thing about the collapse of civilization on the front cover. One of the authors of the article about this actually makes the comment that if humanity is not successful at solving the comingenergy/overpopulation crisis the alternative is too gruesome to contemplate. I think it will prove impossible to control population growth, and there will be mass starvation in the future, and just like on Easter Island, Chaco Canyon and Mesa Verde, extensive cannibalism. Not a pleasant heritage for our, approximately five times great, grand children.

[handlewanker]

Hi Maza, yes I know what you mean.

In the 60's BRM tried a gas turbine F1 racer but it was a devil to control when decellarating into bends.

It would be very impractical to throttle a turbine up and down like a cars accelerator, but if the turbine maintained a constant speed and was connected to a seperate electric generator or hydraulic pump then the output can be controlled as required including reversing, which defeats the object of the exercise to have the motor stationary when at traffic lights.

That means the electric car is coming out a better option for useability all round.

To make it really viable and independent to the man in the street, you would have to have your own solar powered, wind powered, water powered, secret moonshine distillery producer for alcohol powered generator fuel, charging set with a battery storage capacity so that you would be off the grid supply and only topping up if the battery bank was overused.

I still like the idea of being able to simply plug into a wall socket when ever it was required for a quick top up when out shopping etc so that the battery bank in the car didn't become totally exhausted before recharging.

The technology is there, all it requires is the entrepeneurial input to make it universally viable.

I suppose, like the electronic industry the format will be long fought over untill one or the other died out like the VHS/BETA scenario, and most recently the HD/BLUERAY.

Untill then we've got a lot of petrol to burn , so we won't be seeing full scale electric car useage in our lifetime.
Ian.

[fizzissist]

You are tilting at windmills. A lot of countries promote procreation, either with direct payments for new borns, monthly baby bonuses up to a certain age, or tax deductions/credits.

This is part of the problem with our society/economic system, us old farts need a younger, working population, to pay into pension plans that we draw on (soon); the whole system is predicated on growth.

But growth in closed systems cannot continue endlessly, eventually the supply of energy and/or nutrients runs out and the population crashes. I made the point that if the population is not controlled there will be a horrendous die off some time in the future. Actually I am not alone in this opinion; get a copy of the April 5-12 New Scientist, the one with the thing about the collapse of civilization on the front cover. One of the authors of the article about this actually makes the comment that if humanity is not successful at solving the comingenergy/overpopulation crisis the alternative is too gruesome to contemplate. I think it will prove impossible to control population growth, and there will be mass starvation in the future, and just like on Easter Island, Chaco Canyon and Mesa Verde, extensive cannibalism. Not a pleasant heritage for our, approximately five times great, grand children.

Not sure I understand "tilting at windmills"...new one on me...

But I do agree with you, and the closed system concept.

I'd like to have a Polyanna attitude towards our future as far as mass extinctions, with the idea that our kids can engineer solutions...but the reality is there are people out there who will simply take what they want, and while we're trying to find solutions to support our species, we need to defend ourselves as well.

Another problem with our particular closed system is that it's constantly in flux, and that in itself causes no end of strife.

[handlewanker]

Geof, you paint a very explicit picture.

I blanche at the bit on cannabalism, still it's been done.

It is my opinion that the human animal is the most wastefull being this planet has seen, bearing in mind that by burying deep in the ground and burning the dead we deny usefull sustenance to any flesh eating creature that is a bit partial to flesh and isn't too fussy where it comes from.

If this were to be taken to it's ultimate conclusion then the new pet food would be recycled human remains, after the bits and pieces have been removed for organ bank use.

I bet there's a few Chinese shaking their heads in amazement at the prolific child production that is justified by the simple phrase, "God willing", and I don't think it's God that's willing when a big family erupts on the scene.

My father in law had seven children in his family, but he came from Scotland, and as we all know there's nothing worn under the kilt there, everything's in perfect working order LOL.

OOPS, here we go again, I think I'll stay with the electric car, and hope it will soon work it's way down the food chain to the lower strata of consumption, who knows, maybe I can get a conversion kit to make my Mercedes run off of electricity.
Ian.

[handlewanker]

Don Quick shot was a Spanish knight, who attacked a windmill because he thought it was a devilish contraption, apparently after a few bevvies he got really riled up and stuck his lance into the sails on the said windmill.

All this was way back in the 1500's or so in Spain.
Ian.

[handlewanker]

Talking of windmills, back in 1975 I used to buy my wholemeal bread from a mill that ground the corn using a water wheel for it's power source.

So What you say, well this mill was named The great Mill at Priston and was recorded in the Doomesday book in 1066, that William the Conquorer used to assess the taxes to be levied on the population by way of their assets.

No power other than the accumulated water in the mill dam, fed from a small stream, was used to drive the waterwheel that turned the stones that ground the corn.

Now that's being environmentally friendly to say the least.
Ian.

[Geof]

Not sure I understand "tilting at windmills"...new one on me....

Don Quixote, do you not know your Spanish literature, or alternatively how to Google.

Courtesy of Wikipedia:

Tilting at windmills is an English idiom which means attacking imaginary enemies, or fighting otherwise-unwinable battles. The word “tilt,” here, comes from jousting.

This idiomatic phrase originated in the novel Don Quixote, and is often used today in reference to persistent engagement in a futile activity. At one point in the novel, Don Quixote fights windmills that he imagines to be giants. Quixote sees the windmill blades as the giant's arms, for instance. Here is the relevant portion of the novel:

Just then they came in sight of thirty or forty windmills that rise from that plain. And no sooner did Don Quixote see them that he said to his squire, "Fortune is guiding our affairs better than we ourselves could have wished. Do you see over yonder, friend Sancho, thirty or forty hulking giants? I intend to do battle with them and slay them. With their spoils we shall begin to be rich for this is a righteous war and the removal of so foul a brood from off the face of the earth is a service God will bless."

"What giants?" asked Sancho Panza.

"Those you see over there," replied his master, "with their long arms. Some of them have arms well nigh two leagues in length."

[dynosor]

Perhaps YOU could give YOUR views on the subject that I mentioned and tell us what your opinion is, or are you not going to rise to the bait and just sit on the fence like a good little Liberal, or is it a good ol' little Democrat, or perhaps a right good Republican, I don't know what difference is or what it would make, but come along old chap,let's have some viewpoint from you, where do you stand in this situation?

As for me, I like Australia, we had to increase our migrant intake because the home population wasn't increasing to any large degree,.

I dislike most politicians and cannot identify with either of the ruling parties. My thinking
seems to overlap most with the Libertarians, although they are treated as a fringe group,
almost like the Green Party. Democrats piss me off more than Republicans because they
vote for bills that show their miss-trust of the population more consistently. Dems
arrogantly believe they know what everyone needs and if the last law they signed into being
to control us causes a larger problem, they will create new laws to "fix" that.

My view on the world’s "population problem" are enigmatic and perhaps not very PC: I am
not far from my half century mark with no progeny to take my place. From my perspective,
it seems that the people who breed the most are the least able to support large broods.
Government handouts for single mothers doesn't help counter irresponsible behavior. It
seems the parasites breed faster than those they live off (not unlike multiplying politicians).
Perhaps these are the cockroaches you spoke of?

The Dems have been killing their own constituents: If it wasn’t for the Democrats undying
promotion of abortion on demand, they would have out-bred and completely out-voted the
Republicans a long time ago. On the other hand, laws that effectively promote single
motherhood need to be balanced out somehow…

That said, I support the right of anyone who can support a large family to have as many kids
as they want – just as I support their right to buy the largest SUV they can afford. For the
record, I drive a European "compact".

There are enough sensible people who only have one or two kids to balance out the Duggars, and
(I think) most of the US population growth comes from immigration. Americans are not crazy for
having too many kids, they are crazy for exporting too much engineering know-how and
manufacturing capacity. They are crazy for turning food into fuel, and crazier yet if they sign
us up for impossible limits on CO2 emissions. The dollar is falling and I see a big crash coming.
Carbon taxes will just add to the economic woes.

[dynosor]

A turbine revolving at high speed is similar to an electric motor revolving at high speed, (just one moving part), and requires the same reduction drive to extract the torque necessary to drive the rear end.

I cannot see the air motor being a winner, even though it has lots of bells and whistles, due to the fact that there are too many intermediate stages in the power storage production, and most importantly too many moving parts.

However if it was to be an air turbine motor, (picture a die grinder), that was developed to be really economical, then I would say that it has another chance, albeit a slim one.

I admit a love for the infernal combustion engine, but I don't think this needs to cloud my objectivity when considering the alternatives. Ultimately, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. In this case the pudding cannot be seen in isolation.

Turbine engines are used because of their great power to weight ratio despite their meager thermal efficiency - compression ratios are very low. Apart from in aircraft, turbines are also used in military applications like tanks and ships because they can use a variety of fuels - anything from kerosene, gasoline, diesel, alcohol or natural gas.

You think that an air turbine or vane motor is superior to a piston engine because the turbine or vane motor has fewer parts? Air turbines and vane motors produce low torque that has to be multiplied through a long geartrain or an inefficient worm drive before you could power a car. The "engine" may be less complicated, but the complete system is not.

The electric car may not need much gearing, but the grid needs a much greater capacity than it has now to cope with a sudden switch to electric cars, and to achieve what? Most of our electricity is generated from coal. Electric cars can't run without a power source any more than internal combustion powered cars can run without an appropriate fuel supply, and coal CAN be turned into gasoline and diesel. What is more feasible: Changing our energy supply infrastructure and all our vehicles, or just adding to the existing energy supply infrastructure?

If you can build a passenger car that will consistently run off solar energy, more power to you.

[NinerSevenTango]

Turbine engines turn out to have miserable efficiency in small sizes. They only find applicability in aircraft use at sizes that are unwieldy for piston engines, and in this size range, a gearbox and prop has to be added anyway. And as for jets, the only reason they get used is because they can get the aircraft high enough to gain advantage from the thinner air. At low altitudes, mileage is bad, really bad.

A little investigation shows that the same problems apply with electrical generators. Below a certain size, you are better off with piston engines.

At least with a fuel-powered turbine, the compression takes place onboard. A compressed air powered turbine would be such an interesting waste of energy and resources that it might qualify for a tax grant to study it.

[Mariss Freimanis]

I would think a compressed air driven motor would face all the challenges of a hydrogen powered car without any of its advantages. Both require a compressed gas in high pressure tanks but at least hydrogen when burned releases chemical energy. Compressed air relies entirely on mechanical energy stored in compressing the gas. This energy is orders of magnitude less than what's released by burning a flammable gas. It only stands to reason; "Hey kids, why compress air to 5,000 PSI when we can compress hydrogen instead, burn it and get a whole lot more released energy! Same storage tank size but go 100 times further!" From an energy density viewpoint compressed hydrogen is a miserable energy source compared to gasoline, compressed air is pathetically abysmal.

Mariss

[handlewanker]

If you're going to use hydrogen for car use etc, you will need to be able to manufacture the gas on a sustainable basis, store it, transport it and distribute it on a very large scale, IE not crack it from a fossil fuel source even if it is a waste product, like the methane gas that the Bass Strait oil fields in Oz were burning off as waste, until somone cottoned onto the idea that it could be used for cars, now it's being exported too.

I personally would not want to have a hydrogen unit in any form as compared to the "user friendly" electric supply that is well catered for and only needs to be obtained from sources that are presently becoming available.

And that goes for fuel cell technology too.

K.I.S.S. is a phrase that most people pay lip service to and then get blinded by the trendy alternatives.

Park it, plug it in, pay for it. keeping it stupid simple, even my non technical minded daughter can handle that one.

I don't see the grid coming under stress as most of the supply will be catering for the expanding population level, (that is a fact, you can quote me on it), which means more electric power being produced as and when it's required.

You can get electricity from a square metre of solid rock face with solar cells, but you can't grow Ethanol producing crops there.

China has a lot of rocky ground not suitable for agriculture, so if they make the power we'll buy their goods paid for by the food we can grow without having to worry about Ethanol production. One hand washes the other, yes?

It is a fact that you humanoids will only fall back on the next available source of energy when the current source dries up or gets too dear to exploit, very forward thinking, when all it takes is to install the collector mechanisms for sustainable energy and you have free power forever, like picking Blackberries from a bush growing in the wild.

They say that the Sun, (what an original name for your gas giant), will burn out in a hundred thousand million years give or take a few, so there should be enough, presently going to waste, to cover the needs of the 45 billion mouths that "someone", (no names but follow my eyes), said this planet could with a bit of squeezing support, yeah, you wish, pigs are gonna fly first.

So for my part I would vote 100% for the adoption of the electric car as the most practical form of people mover, unless someone in the meantime harnesses all those pigs that are going to fly and gets Bacon to go, the middle eastern mob are going to miss out on that one due to their strange attitude to Pork in general.

The moral of the story is:- If you push it hard enough, anything can happen, not always in your best interests.
Ian.

[Geof]

......You can get electricity from a square metre of solid rock face with solar cells, but you can't grow Ethanol producing crops there.......Ian.

This is true, but at full sunlight the solar energy is about one kilowatt per square meter.

If by some miracle solar cell efficicency is doubled, the electrical energy you get out of your solar collector is about 300 watts.

And this is only during daytime when there are no clouds.

[ynneb]

I thought this was an interesting artical
http://home.iprimus.com.au/nielsens/solen.html
and
http://home.iprimus.com.au/nielsens/solrad.html