Building an electric... bike!? (electric motors)

[Allan]

On 07 Jun 2006 06:58:10 GMT, erazmus@iinet.net.au (Mike) wrote:

Yes I would like to see that, I have a heat engine project on the back
burner at moment <great pun>. Basically arranging best use of pressure,
also have a pair of unused VL/Nissan 6 cyl engines in the back shed
that havent rusted yet, have in mind using them at some point though I
robbed one of them of big end bearings for my VLT...

Steam engines are really really simple, just pressure and applied to
a piston, thats effectively it...

Yep, but how to build the thing so it doesn't explode... You'd need
engineering qualifications surely - and then how to please the RTA is
the next problem.

That "Pritchard Steam Car" guy - his father invented a type of
valve... I think it was because steam engines have poor acceleration?
His valve overcame whatever the problem was anyway. Some collector in
WA bought the only car the father and son made and hid it away. What
a waste!

 

[swanny]

Allan wrote:

On 07 Jun 2006 06:58:10 GMT, erazmus@iinet.net.au (Mike) wrote:


Yes I would like to see that, I have a heat engine project on the back
burner at moment <great pun>. Basically arranging best use of pressure,
also have a pair of unused VL/Nissan 6 cyl engines in the back shed
that havent rusted yet, have in mind using them at some point though I
robbed one of them of big end bearings for my VLT...

Steam engines are really really simple, just pressure and applied to
a piston, thats effectively it...


Yep, but how to build the thing so it doesn't explode... You'd need
engineering qualifications surely - and then how to please the RTA is
the next problem.

That "Pritchard Steam Car" guy - his father invented a type of
valve... I think it was because steam engines have poor acceleration?
His valve overcame whatever the problem was anyway. Some collector in
WA bought the only car the father and son made and hid it away. What
a waste!

Trouble is, the Rankin cycle doesn't give you anywhere near the same
energy output as the Otto cycle.

Someone worked on this and came up with a modified steam engine that
improved on teh Rankin cycle, using supercritical pressure (3200psi) and
temperatures of about 1200 deg F. Nasty thing to have in an accident
though ...

See here for some more info:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/concept_engines/index.html

 

[Allan]

On 07 Jun 2006 06:58:10 GMT, erazmus@iinet.net.au (Mike) wrote:

I saw an article years ago about a VW bug - still have it somewhere, I
might dig it out. I *think* it said titanium pistons were fitted.
Anyway, point being of course engines are modified to prevent rust. I
have always wished I could learn to build steam engines - maybe one
day I can find a decent book on it. [sigh]

Yes I would like to see that

I've looked where the article should be and couldn't find it. I did
find this one though (each link is one page):

http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=download&ufid=5E3260B5221955D7
http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=download&ufid=0688DC843F20B179
http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=download&ufid=9F255ED55E205F34

It prints better than it looks on a computer screen too. Not much in
the way of practical info though.

Allan

 

[Mike]

In article <4483ae81_1@news.iprimus.com.au>, tb@department9.com.au says...

Petrol is cheaper now than it was 10 years ago, all else

How do you work that one out? In 10 years petrol has more than doubled in
price, my income has gone up far less than double in the same period.

Inflation, value of money roughly halves each 10 years, however, if oil
had kept pace with inflation since the mid 70's it woould be around $140
per barrel and petrol would be arounf $2.50/L.

If it was possible to work the real value petrol is about 10% cheaper
in real terms over last 30 years, prob only 5% cheaper from last 10 but
there are going to be all sorts of debatable factors in that equation.

Although people in UK are paying around $2 per litre already, we have it
quite good despite fact most of income goes to government coffers to pay
for problematic capital works like tunnels or a nuclear power plant <sigh>

There are going to be many anomalies in any change in value, nothing
keeps pace the same as any economic average, your income level has its
own issues, some might be situational, who knows.


--
Regards
Mike
* GMC/VL Commodore, Calais VL Turbo FuseRail that wont warp or melt !
* High grade milspec ignition driver electronics now in development
* Twin Tyres to suit most sedans, trikes and motorcycle sidecars
http://niche.iinet.net.au

 

[Allan]

On 08 Jun 2006 05:07:03 GMT, erazmus@iinet.net.au (Mike) wrote:

In article <4483ae81_1@news.iprimus.com.au>, tb@department9.com.au says...

Petrol is cheaper now than it was 10 years ago, all else

How do you work that one out? In 10 years petrol has more than doubled in
price, my income has gone up far less than double in the same period.

Inflation, value of money roughly halves each 10 years, however, if oil
had kept pace with inflation since the mid 70's it woould be around $140
per barrel and petrol would be arounf $2.50/L.

I thought that estimate was every 23 years? Anyway...

We use about 51 Litres per week. This costs us about $58.14 when it
was about $1.14. Now it's $1.40 (or is it even more today?), which
means we now pay $71.40 - $13.26 more. Our income hasn't increased
and add to that the extra expense from other things being dragged up
because of extra freight costs...

Personally, I hope they keep right on going. The faster and higher
the better. They've taken it too far and the cutting of their own
throats has begun. The more expensive fuel is, the more people will
say I won't pay this anymore and just dump petrol altogether.

Going by our figures (which are lower than most folks), that's a
yearly petrol cost of $3713, a 2-year cost of $7426 and a 3-year cost
of $11,138. (And that's assuming it doesn't rise any further, which
it will.) So assuming it will go up further, for the price of about
the next 2.5 years worth of fuel, I could convert a car to electric
today.

Now all I've got to do, is discover how you get something like that
passed for rego and I'll get started. ; )

Allan

 

[two bob]

Petrol is cheaper now than it was 10 years ago, all else

How do you work that one out? In 10 years petrol has more than doubled in
price, my income has gone up far less than double in the same period.

Inflation, value of money roughly halves each 10 years, however, if oil
had kept pace with inflation since the mid 70's it woould be around $140
per barrel and petrol would be arounf $2.50/L.

I thought that estimate was every 23 years? Anyway...

We use about 51 Litres per week. This costs us about $58.14 when it
was about $1.14. Now it's $1.40 (or is it even more today?), which
means we now pay $71.40 - $13.26 more. Our income hasn't increased
and add to that the extra expense from other things being dragged up
because of extra freight costs...

Personally, I hope they keep right on going. The faster and higher
the better. They've taken it too far and the cutting of their own
throats has begun. The more expensive fuel is, the more people will
say I won't pay this anymore and just dump petrol altogether.

The problem is that there isnt anything else thats affordable at the moment.

Going by our figures (which are lower than most folks), that's a
yearly petrol cost of $3713, a 2-year cost of $7426 and a 3-year cost
of $11,138. (And that's assuming it doesn't rise any further, which
it will.) So assuming it will go up further, for the price of about
the next 2.5 years worth of fuel, I could convert a car to electric
today.

Now all I've got to do, is discover how you get something like that
passed for rego and I'll get started. ; )

As long as the vehicle isn't modified (safety wise) there shouldn't be a
problem with rego. Brakes are a problem though, they must be power assisted
which means that you either get a pre power assist brake model or install a
vacuum pump. The other problem is where do you fit all them batteries?

 

[Allan]

On Thu, 8 Jun 2006 22:00:09 +1000, "two bob" <tb@department9.com.au>
wrote:

Now all I've got to do, is discover how you get something like that
passed for rego and I'll get started. ; )

As long as the vehicle isn't modified (safety wise) there shouldn't be a
problem with rego. Brakes are a problem though, they must be power assisted
which means that you either get a pre power assist brake model or install a
vacuum pump. The other problem is where do you fit all them batteries?

I've been reading the last couple of days and there's some great
batteries coming out. One was a new type of lead acid that's half the
weight - and cheaper than lead acid I think. Another one I saw was
like a sandwich of tin foil with what looks like ribbon cable for
terminals (can't remember the name of it now), but it was lightweight,
high current/capacity and only lost 1% capacity after 1000 recharge
cycles.

 

[Mike]

In article <ukog82p7u3g7a0gr9ogjoubphnj08oda80@4ax.com>, justallan@COLDhotmail.com says...

I've been reading the last couple of days and there's some great
batteries coming out. One was a new type of lead acid that's half the
weight - and cheaper than lead acid I think. Another one I saw was
like a sandwich of tin foil with what looks like ribbon cable for
terminals (can't remember the name of it now), but it was lightweight,
high current/capacity and only lost 1% capacity after 1000 recharge
cycles.

The best lithium-ion variants have an energy density approaching to
that of petrol, ie 9000 Watt hours per litre or for the battery
per kilo...

Its possible that they might get even better, and even at that point
that much energy in something the size of a brick could be pretty
dangerous - the instantaneous discharge of that much equivalent
electrical energy in that package if it were punctured could be
disastrous.

However, even if we did have a one kilo brick that could store
say 5000 Watt hours of energy, it still needs to get charged plus
the amortised energy (CO2) of making it in the first place is
not to be sneezed at, plus later on the cost of recycling it...

Seems the Carbon-Hydrogen bond is the best energy carrier and probably
why we function so well because of it... <sigh>

Throw away the Oxygen-Hydrogen one, its too low energy and too dangerous
and any politcally motivated group that builds H2 buses just hasnt
done their basic physics and risk assessment analysis.

Side note not many people are aware of.
There is more hydrogen and more energy in a litre of petrol than there
is in a litre of liquid hydrogen, even if you could get it as a liquid.

The trick would be to retain the energy density of the carbon-hydrogen
bond and recycle the carbon, nature has been doing it for billions of
years and has never had to go the nuclear route. I think we can do the
same in far less time and in fact there are probably ways to use the
CO2 produced in the short terms as a major component of building materials
something nature has also been doing for billions of years...

So wouldnt it be incumbent upon us as caretakers of the planet to:-

a. Use liquid fuels as the infrastructure for distribution and use
in internal combustion engines is already in place and by that paradigm
I mean renewable liquid fuels.
b. Determine how to extract CO2 from the atmosphere to reduce the
greenhouse effect
c. Sequester CO2 temporarily from large power projects which have the
momentum of using fossil sources.
d. Convert this CO2 into building material, presumably to construct
infrastructure for a and c above.
e. Engineer biological organisms to implement b and d above, again this
is something that nature has been doing for billions of years.


--
Regards
Mike
* GMC/VL Commodore, Calais VL Turbo FuseRail that wont warp or melt !
* High grade milspec ignition driver electronics now in development
* Twin Tyres to suit most sedans, trikes and motorcycle sidecars
http://niche.iinet.net.au

 

[two bob]

I've been reading the last couple of days and there's some great
batteries coming out. One was a new type of lead acid that's half the
weight - and cheaper than lead acid I think. Another one I saw was
like a sandwich of tin foil with what looks like ribbon cable for
terminals (can't remember the name of it now), but it was lightweight,
high current/capacity and only lost 1% capacity after 1000 recharge
cycles.

The best lithium-ion variants have an energy density approaching to
that of petrol, ie 9000 Watt hours per litre or for the battery
per kilo...

Its possible that they might get even better, and even at that point
that much energy in something the size of a brick could be pretty
dangerous - the instantaneous discharge of that much equivalent
electrical energy in that package if it were punctured could be
disastrous.

However, even if we did have a one kilo brick that could store
say 5000 Watt hours of energy, it still needs to get charged plus
the amortised energy (CO2) of making it in the first place is
not to be sneezed at, plus later on the cost of recycling it...

Seems the Carbon-Hydrogen bond is the best energy carrier and probably
why we function so well because of it... <sigh

Throw away the Oxygen-Hydrogen one, its too low energy and too dangerous
and any politcally motivated group that builds H2 buses just hasnt
done their basic physics and risk assessment analysis.

Side note not many people are aware of.
There is more hydrogen and more energy in a litre of petrol than there
is in a litre of liquid hydrogen, even if you could get it as a liquid.

The trick would be to retain the energy density of the carbon-hydrogen
bond and recycle the carbon, nature has been doing it for billions of
years and has never had to go the nuclear route. I think we can do the
same in far less time and in fact there are probably ways to use the
CO2 produced in the short terms as a major component of building materials
something nature has also been doing for billions of years...

So wouldnt it be incumbent upon us as caretakers of the planet to:-

a. Use liquid fuels as the infrastructure for distribution and use
in internal combustion engines is already in place and by that paradigm
I mean renewable liquid fuels.
b. Determine how to extract CO2 from the atmosphere to reduce the
greenhouse effect
c. Sequester CO2 temporarily from large power projects which have the
momentum of using fossil sources.
d. Convert this CO2 into building material, presumably to construct
infrastructure for a and c above.
e. Engineer biological organisms to implement b and d above, again this
is something that nature has been doing for billions of years.

Hold on while Allen goes down the back shed and knocks something up. Sounds
like a real good DIY project that anyone can tackle.

 

[Allan]

On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 21:14:08 +1000, "two bob" <tb@department9.com.au>
wrote:

So wouldnt it be incumbent upon us as caretakers of the planet to:-

a. Use liquid fuels as the infrastructure for distribution and use
in internal combustion engines is already in place and by that paradigm
I mean renewable liquid fuels.
b. Determine how to extract CO2 from the atmosphere to reduce the
greenhouse effect
c. Sequester CO2 temporarily from large power projects which have the
momentum of using fossil sources.
d. Convert this CO2 into building material, presumably to construct
infrastructure for a and c above.
e. Engineer biological organisms to implement b and d above, again this
is something that nature has been doing for billions of years.

Hold on while Allen goes down the back shed and knocks something up. Sounds
like a real good DIY project that anyone can tackle.

HAH! ; )

 

[Mike]

In article <44895808_1@news.iprimus.com.au>, tb@department9.com.au says...

So wouldnt it be incumbent upon us as caretakers of the planet to:-

a. Use liquid fuels as the infrastructure for distribution and use
in internal combustion engines is already in place and by that paradigm
I mean renewable liquid fuels.
b. Determine how to extract CO2 from the atmosphere to reduce the
greenhouse effect
c. Sequester CO2 temporarily from large power projects which have the
momentum of using fossil sources.
d. Convert this CO2 into building material, presumably to construct
infrastructure for a and c above.
e. Engineer biological organisms to implement b and d above, again this
is something that nature has been doing for billions of years.

Hold on while Allen goes down the back shed and knocks something up. Sounds
like a real good DIY project that anyone can tackle.

Its not that hard, well as it appears, taking each item in turn:-

a. Is already in place, minor changes might be to add greater capacity for
oxygenated fuels like alcohol and methanol, lots of plastics and industrial
plants already use and produce those chemicals so the methods of storage
and transport are well known, consider this part already done for most
part.

b. Nature has already been doing this for ages, there is a huge ocean sink,
although this is harder it may well be the lowest priority item in
comparison with the others. Genetic engineering of fast growning trees
such as Pawlonia for example along with kelps and other seaweeds is going
to bear more fruit <pun> than much we can do on land. Kelp is is pretty
high demand not just for toothpaste.

c. Sequestering isnt also that hard though there are better places in the
word for it than others depending on geological factors. Not difficult
to separate O2 from N2 from air before feeding it to a combustion chamber
for producing heat for electricity, the resulting gas is mostly CO2 and
H2O, they are also easy to separate. We need political will along with
an alternative economic model that includes serious use of carbon credits.

d. We have heaps of sulphates in the ground already, if it were possible
to strip the SO2 from Calcium, Potassium and Sodium and replace it with
a carbonate then we have a heap of limestone, a great deal of sulphates
are used in inductrial processes though I'm not sure how much mroe than
carbonates. Its an option worth checking though. I also understand there
is research into methods to produce composites, ie Bond carbonates to
existing sulphates, there is a whole area of inorganic complexes that
may well be a suitable way to absorb CO2 and use the product as a
structural material, not an area I am expert in but having seen odd
inorganics for the last 30 years I think its worth pursuing.

e. Genetic engineering is growing by leaps and bounds, also need political
will to pursue this with more gusto perhaps along with a focus.

All the above needs a serious improvement in basic along with advanced
education, I am just not use that the OBE system is focused along any
lines to generate intellectual muscle to address the above points <sigh>


--
Regards
Mike
* GMC/VL Commodore, Calais VL Turbo FuseRail that wont warp or melt !
* High grade milspec ignition driver electronics now in development
* Twin Tyres to suit most sedans, trikes and motorcycle sidecars
http://niche.iinet.net.au

 

[Mike]

In article <45kf82diu0gaggpsergu5fug0873qt9o0f@4ax.com>, justallan@COLDhotmail.com says...

Inflation, value of money roughly halves each 10 years, however, if oil
had kept pace with inflation since the mid 70's it woould be around $140
per barrel and petrol would be arounf $2.50/L.

I thought that estimate was every 23 years? Anyway...

You can calculate it, though you need the indicated inflation rate
for each year, you cant just average the rates. We've had years
where inflation was 15%, now its about 5%, it all is subject to
compounding, easy to raise things to a power. Similar to this:-

If I put 1000 in bank for 10 years at 5% then how much would I
have at the end if I dont take anything out etc. So iirc:-

Final Amount = 1000 x 1.05 ^(10)

We use about 51 Litres per week. This costs us about $58.14 when it
was about $1.14. Now it's $1.40 (or is it even more today?), which
means we now pay $71.40 - $13.26 more. Our income hasn't increased
and add to that the extra expense from other things being dragged up
because of extra freight costs...

Personally, I hope they keep right on going. The faster and higher
the better. They've taken it too far and the cutting of their own
throats has begun. The more expensive fuel is, the more people will
say I won't pay this anymore and just dump petrol altogether.

Going by our figures (which are lower than most folks), that's a
yearly petrol cost of $3713, a 2-year cost of $7426 and a 3-year cost
of $11,138. (And that's assuming it doesn't rise any further, which
it will.) So assuming it will go up further, for the price of about
the next 2.5 years worth of fuel, I could convert a car to electric
today.

Now all I've got to do, is discover how you get something like that
passed for rego and I'll get started. ; )

Allan

--
Regards
Mike
* GMC/VL Commodore, Calais VL Turbo FuseRail that wont warp or melt !
* High grade milspec ignition driver electronics now in development
* Twin Tyres to suit most sedans, trikes and motorcycle sidecars
http://niche.iinet.net.au

 

[Mike]

In article <448bb3aa$0$26217$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, erazmus@iinet.net.au says...

ooorppppsss - Somehow news reader thinks I pressed ctrl-s... <guh>

Inflation, value of money roughly halves each 10 years, however, if oil
had kept pace with inflation since the mid 70's it woould be around $140
per barrel and petrol would be arounf $2.50/L.

I thought that estimate was every 23 years? Anyway...

You can calculate it, though you need the indicated inflation rate
for each year, you cant just average the rates. We've had years
where inflation was 15%, now its about 5%, it all is subject to
compounding, easy to raise things to a power. Similar to this:-

If I put 1000 in bank for 10 years at 5% then how much would I
have at the end if I dont take anything out etc. So iirc:-

Final Amount = 1000 x 1.05 ^(10)

Sorry for break, here is the rest of my post:-

Some think the real inflation rate is closer to 8%, then put those
figures in and you get, for one dollar:-

$2.16 = $1.00 x (1.08)^10

You can interpret this as:-

$2.16 of money now is the same buying power as $1 was 10 years ago if the
average inflation rate is approx 8%. So from the way this exponent
works its clear that even a slight rise in the inflation rate propogates
through to a large loss of value. Or if you use it for income from
interest - a high capital value...

The 'estimate' you have for 23 years can be worked backwards to arrive
at the average inflation rate, if you see this as a halving of value then:-

$2 = $1 x (rate)^23

log 2 = 23 x log rate

log rate = (log 2) /23

log rate = 0.013

therefore:-

rate = 1.031

In other words, there is no f..... way that the inflation rate has been 1%
for the last 23 years !

So I stand by my observation that the value of money 'roughly' halves
each 10 years - more or less by not much

We use about 51 Litres per week. This costs us about $58.14 when it
was about $1.14. Now it's $1.40 (or is it even more today?), which
means we now pay $71.40 - $13.26 more. Our income hasn't increased
and add to that the extra expense from other things being dragged up
because of extra freight costs...

You can tweak your car to use a bit less fuel, drive it very gently when
its still warming up, tweak the AFM to make it a little leaner, keep
your tyres at highest practicable pressure, keep windows closed where
possible to reduce drag over 70 Km/hr, use air con only sporadically,
make sure your fuel system is as new with no evaporative leaks etc

Personally, I hope they keep right on going. The faster and higher
the better. They've taken it too far and the cutting of their own
throats has begun. The more expensive fuel is, the more people will
say I won't pay this anymore and just dump petrol altogether.

Not going to go up that much though, cost of gas is still very very low,
the differential will mean the average fixed price for oil wont be that
much more than it has been for last 30 years - taking inflation into
account, there will be speculation and swings but the average wont change
much until gas also goes up a lot, that is a bit unlikely.

Going by our figures (which are lower than most folks), that's a
yearly petrol cost of $3713, a 2-year cost of $7426 and a 3-year cost
of $11,138. (And that's assuming it doesn't rise any further, which
it will.) So assuming it will go up further, for the price of about
the next 2.5 years worth of fuel, I could convert a car to electric
today.

The money in conversion wouldnt be worth it

Now all I've got to do, is discover how you get something like that
passed for rego and I'll get started. ; )

Better to use biodiesels, home produced fuels, trailer of wood and
wood gas production such as was used during 2nd world war, that method
was actually quite effective, though meant dragging a trailer around,
maybe these days wood gas fueling can be miniaturised a lot.

<chuckle>

--
Regards
Mike
* GMC/VL Commodore, Calais VL Turbo FuseRail that wont warp or melt !
* High grade milspec ignition driver electronics now in development
* Twin Tyres to suit most sedans, trikes and motorcycle sidecars
http://niche.iinet.net.au

 

[Mike]

In article <vquc82dhcd1g5q221rqgrgtpovfql6u003@4ax.com>, justallan@COLDhotmail.com says...

Steam engines are really really simple, just pressure and applied to
a piston, thats effectively it...

Yep, but how to build the thing so it doesn't explode... You'd need
engineering qualifications surely - and then how to please the RTA is
the next problem.

Most materials suppliers of things like pipes and valves will point
you to tables or specs, just need a bit of math skills and if in doubt
ask them, and/or go to traditional boiler suppliers/manufacturers, you can
get a heap of skills from a TAFE course for boiler making too, it is really
easy to find out the basic data - the trick is to focus on it for a few
minutes so it makes sense. Do this in concert with BMEP for an engine
and one soon finds out just what pressure and flow you need to make any
particular piston engine perform well enough from a steam source.

You dont need qualifications to build one for your workshop or to research
but you sure do if you sell, install etc for anyone else..

Road Traffic Authority would surely be an issue so for that, get a classic
car from 60 years ago as a starting point

That "Pritchard Steam Car" guy - his father invented a type of
valve... I think it was because steam engines have poor acceleration?

Poor efficiency, average locomotive was about 7%, reminds me of the
largest ones built in USA, 6000 hp at around the late 1930's, that means
they threw away a *huge* amount of heat to develop 6000hp to pull
cariages, yep they did have overweight people even in the 1930's

<chuckle>

His valve overcame whatever the problem was anyway. Some collector in
WA bought the only car the father and son made and hid it away. What
a waste!

--
Regards
Mike
* GMC/VL Commodore, Calais VL Turbo FuseRail that wont warp or melt !
* High grade milspec ignition driver electronics now in development
* Twin Tyres to suit most sedans, trikes and motorcycle sidecars
http://niche.iinet.net.au

 

[Allan]

On 11 Jun 2006 06:39:55 GMT, erazmus@iinet.net.au (Mike) wrote:

Better to use biodiesels, home produced fuels, trailer of wood and
wood gas production such as was used during 2nd world war, that method
was actually quite effective, though meant dragging a trailer around,
maybe these days wood gas fueling can be miniaturised a lot.

Yes, have seen pictures of these during my research. What freedom we
give up for the sake of convenience!

 

[two bob]

Petrol is cheaper now than it was 10 years ago, all else

How do you work that one out? In 10 years petrol has more than doubled in
price, my income has gone up far less than double in the same period.

Inflation, value of money roughly halves each 10 years, however, if oil
had kept pace with inflation since the mid 70's it woould be around $140
per barrel and petrol would be arounf $2.50/L.

If money halves every 10 years, petrol should be approx $0.96 per litre
since the mid seventies.

If it was possible to work the real value petrol is about 10% cheaper
in real terms over last 30 years, prob only 5% cheaper from last 10 but
there are going to be all sorts of debatable factors in that equation.

Although people in UK are paying around $2 per litre already, we have it
quite good despite fact most of income goes to government coffers to pay
for problematic capital works like tunnels or a nuclear power plant <sigh

There are going to be many anomalies in any change in value, nothing
keeps pace the same as any economic average, your income level has its
own issues, some might be situational, who knows.

 

[Mike]

In article <448bfe11_1@news.iprimus.com.au>, tb@department9.com.au says...

Petrol is cheaper now than it was 10 years ago, all else

How do you work that one out? In 10 years petrol has more than doubled in
price, my income has gone up far less than double in the same period.

Inflation, value of money roughly halves each 10 years, however, if oil
had kept pace with inflation since the mid 70's it woould be around $140
per barrel and petrol would be arounf $2.50/L.

If money halves every 10 years, petrol should be approx $0.96 per litre
since the mid seventies.

Halves in value, means twice as many dollars for the same amount...!

See my other post re calculating using exponent on % inflation...

This is why petrol (and oil) is actually cheaper now - in real terms.



--
Regards
Mike
* GMC/VL Commodore, Calais VL Turbo FuseRail that wont warp or melt !
* High grade milspec ignition driver electronics now in development
* Twin Tyres to suit most sedans, trikes and motorcycle sidecars
http://niche.iinet.net.au

 

[two bob]

Petrol is cheaper now than it was 10 years ago, all else

How do you work that one out? In 10 years petrol has more than doubled
in
price, my income has gone up far less than double in the same period.

Inflation, value of money roughly halves each 10 years, however, if oil
had kept pace with inflation since the mid 70's it woould be around $140
per barrel and petrol would be arounf $2.50/L.

If money halves every 10 years, petrol should be approx $0.96 per litre
since the mid seventies.

Halves in value, means twice as many dollars for the same amount...!

Yes, I based my calculation on that. In 1976, I was paying just under 0.11
per litre. So, in 1986, it should have been 0.24 /L, then in 1996 it should
have been 0.48 /L, therefore 2006 it should be 0.96 cents per litre.

See my other post re calculating using exponent on % inflation...

This is why petrol (and oil) is actually cheaper now - in real terms.



--
Regards
Mike
* GMC/VL Commodore, Calais VL Turbo FuseRail that wont warp or melt !
* High grade milspec ignition driver electronics now in development
* Twin Tyres to suit most sedans, trikes and motorcycle sidecars
http://niche.iinet.net.au

 

[Mike]

In article <448cdef0$1_1@news.iprimus.com.au>, tb@department9.com.au says...

Halves in value, means twice as many dollars for the same amount...!

Yes, I based my calculation on that. In 1976, I was paying just under 0.11
per litre. So, in 1986, it should have been 0.24 /L, then in 1996 it should
have been 0.48 /L, therefore 2006 it should be 0.96 cents per litre.

So you are saying the average inflation rate between 1976 and 1986 was 8%,
I think it was more like 15% or thereabouts but, even it was an average of 8%
there were wild swings to 15% or more, this cannot be averaged as its an
exponential calculation

Also between 1986 and 1996, I seem to recall it was more like 10%

However, since 1996 the inflation rate has been between 5 and 9% more or
less, I also recall the petrol price was around 80c/L, so doubling that
puts it at $1.60/L which is more than the $1.32 I paid yesterday and that
was the basis for my comment.

My statement of doubling each 10 years is a broad brush estimate and I
went on the last 10 years or so in that petrol iirc, was around 75 to 80c/L.

Anything further back from that, when we had quite a lot higher inflation
really needs a year by year calculation as an average just wont work because
averaging the rate then applying it to the exponent calculation wont result
in the same figure as taking it year by year when there are wilder swings,
its pretty clear why thats the case - compounding...

The other complication is that the government added parity pricing, funnily
enough that seems to have returned it (petrol) to correlation with inflation,
prior to that it was lagging behind significantly and migth well have been
undervalued in psychological terms, had it been done earlier the truer cost
of the fuel from the perspective of long term environmental damage might
well have been factored in.

Petrol is still far less in Perth than it is in Europe.

There are always going to be heaps of anomalies, the general case is only
sufficient for the odd pub debate not so much for detailled analysis but
then the detailled analysis isnt that hard either...


--
Regards
Mike
* GMC/VL Commodore, Calais VL Turbo FuseRail that wont warp or melt !
* High grade milspec ignition driver electronics now in development
* Twin Tyres to suit most sedans, trikes and motorcycle sidecars
http://niche.iinet.net.au

 

[Mike]

In article <8uon82djdgcbitqiihmctr6vb8d4g997rf@4ax.com>, justallan@COLDhotmail.com says...

On 11 Jun 2006 06:39:55 GMT, erazmus@iinet.net.au (Mike) wrote:

Better to use biodiesels, home produced fuels, trailer of wood and
wood gas production such as was used during 2nd world war, that method
was actually quite effective, though meant dragging a trailer around,
maybe these days wood gas fueling can be miniaturised a lot.

Yes, have seen pictures of these during my research. What freedom we
give up for the sake of convenience!

har har, I just had a thought, if we did use wood directly with some
miniaturised gas extractor it certainly would dampen Howard's plan to
tax alternative fuels, can you imagine a senate session where the various
types of wood come up for discussion, <erotic puns aside>

<chuckle>


--
Regards
Mike
* GMC/VL Commodore, Calais VL Turbo FuseRail that wont warp or melt !
* High grade milspec ignition driver electronics now in development
* Twin Tyres to suit most sedans, trikes and motorcycle sidecars
http://niche.iinet.net.au