Chip with simple program for Toy

[Rod Speed]

Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote

Why not just charge battereis with solar put in racks of 20
warehouse charged universal racks electric cars of all kinds
switch out the racks 200 miles racks available every 20 miles
deposit on a rack 40 seconds to switch out the rack at a "station"

Not viable. Have you the remotest concept of how much solar would
be needed at each rack station, and how long it takes to charge the
rack again and how many cars would be swapping the rack on even
a single decent interstate ?

It wouldnt even be viable with nukes for the charging.

It would make more sense to use nukes to produce hydrogen and use that instead.

Naw, you charge them up outside town, on a large scale,
truck them in just like they do gas with tankers.

That wouldnt change a thing viability wise. In fact it would make it much worse.

One tractor truck load would carry alot of full tanks.

Again, the problem aint with moving the batterys, the problem is
the amount of time it takes to recharge them and return them to
where you put them into cars. That approach of centralised
charging would just make that problem much worse and you would
need a lot more batterys in the process of being recharged.

I wouldn't say that it would be centralized, or as centralized as oil refinement.

There's no point in doing other than recharging them where they
are swapped if you're going to use the grid to recharge them.

This doesn't eliminate the possibility that gas/battery stations could be smaller,

They wouldnt even be that.

to meet the demands of space in cities

There are no demands like that with car filling stations.

and allow swap stations to be in as many places as gas
stations are now, if the racks were just trucked in and out.

You dont need to truck them in and out, just recharge them at the swap stations.

And it wouldnt work anyway, because it takes too long to recharge them.

That position assumes that there is not enough area to produce the needed solar power.

Corse there isnt. Its a trivial calculation.

The company that is getting ready to attempt to power Albuquerque New
Mexico, with 4 square miles of mirrors, claims that it would take a couple
hundred spuare miles in the desert west to power the entire country.

Pity thats a lie and it wouldnt work with rechargable batterys for cars anyway.

Again, we are not both defining "scale of production and distribution"
nor "supply and demand" on large scales, the same way.

I'm not 'defining' anything, just rubbing your nose in the fact that your unviable approach
would be even less viable if the batterys arent recharged where they are swapped.

I apologise if I made it sound like they could only be trucked in and out.

I didnt say you did.

I believe they could be charged where they are swapped in some types of service stations.

They could be charged in all of those if you're charging them from the grid.

But in others they would be trucked in and out.

Nope.

Maybe you should define "viable" so we can have a criterion to work with.

The definition is that it works. Your scheme wouldnt.

I am talking about on a competitive level with existing energy production methods.

You're talking about an approach that just plain wont work, because it takes
too long to recharge the batterys. In spades if you plan to do that using solar.

Doesn't it take a couple of hours to charge 20 or
40 batteries with the right amperage and current?

Wrong with batterys that are the entire power source of the car.

At many auto stores they can completely charge one battery in about an hour, but it gets hot.

Wrong again. They certainly cant do that with the batterys in electric vehicles.

won't work" it sounds like you
have some pretty solid evidence to back that up with.

Yep, have a look at the charge times of electric vehicles some time.

Its like your saying certainly without a doubt it won't work now or ever.

Thats what I am saying with an interstate full of cars swapping the batterys every 200 miles.

I am curious about that, considering you strong and emotional looking language.

Its not strong or emotional looking, its just the fact.

I suppose you are all hung up on the unstated
assumptions about how we get from here to there?

Nope, just rubbing your nose in the fact that your unviable approach would
be even less viable if the batterys arent recharged where they are swapped.

Now you are swtitching from "not viable at all" to "less viable"

Nope. I'm saying that charging from the mains isnt viable, and that
centralised charging stations are even less viable, essentially because
that just adds to the time it takes to recharge the battery with the
transport time to the central charging station and back.

And that solar charging is even less viable again, because the sun doesnt
shine long enough strong enough so that adds to the charging time even more.

I can accept that language for logic sake.

Nothing to accept.

Upon reading my statement of "all hung up" I am sorry, I should have
said "dogmatic about how the issue of how to get from here to there.

Still just plain wrong. Nothing dogmatic about the facts.

That of course is an important issue, but is somewhat off topic, as
I have addressed the topic.

Nope, you've just waffled on about what isnt the problem, how the
batterys are swapped.

Currently the gas is stored underground. But stations would
probably turn into warehouses. When you pull up the standard
arm comes out, pulls out the tired pack and slaps another in,
in seconds. Faster than putting any liquid in.

The problem aint with swapping the battery, its with charging it
so its usable again.

Are you saying that if this took off on a large scale that there
wouldn't be enough light to charge more batteries than each
station could use?

No, that it takes too long to recharge them, compared with the
rate at which they are being discharged with all those cars
heading down the interstate.

Then your saying that it would be impossible to charge two, three, or even
four times as many batteries as all cars could possibly use in a day?

Using solar, yep.

When you claim that "it would be impossible to charge two, three, or
even four times as many batteries as all cars could possibly use in a
day" do you mean now or ever?

Ever with solar. Essentially because there isnt ever going to be enough
solar falling on the site that you use to do the charging, even if you
assume an ideal collection of everything that falls on that site, and the
technology will never get that good.

Also to make such a strong claim

Again, it isnt a strong claim, its just basic physics.

it seems that you would be ready to provide at least an outline of how
much energy is available and how much per space we might get from it.
Can you do that?

Its completely routine for anyone to check what solar falls on a particular location.

It appears that you are just saying, no, but providing no evidence
to support the logic,

Wrong again. Have you even the remotest concept of how much
area of solar cells would be required to recharge that many
batterys every day, including the days when there isnt enough sun ?

Actually my original position was based upon mirors not solar cells.

Makes no difference, there isnt enough solar arriving at the entire charging site.

This company in New Mexico has determined that they would
only need 4 square miles of mirrors, steam engines and
generators, to power Albuquerque New Mexico 24 hours a day.

Pity that most of the US doesnt have anything like that much solar.

But as for the possibility of charging 3 or 4 times as
many batteries as people could use, would the limitation
be upon how much space is present or how much is usable.

Neither. The problem is that the batterys are
discharged faster than you can charge them.

And the idea that things can be trucked
around the country in very large scales is not odd.

Its just not practical with batterys that only last for 200 miles.

The idea wouldn't seem strange to Walmart considering
the tonage they move around the country daily.

None of their customers use up anything like that volume so quickly.

The liquid fuel industry doesnt either.

which of course would be begging the question itself.

Nope. Thats not what that phrase means.

Begging the question is a fallacy where the arguer states one or more
premises and then merely repeats one of the premises as a conclusion.

No one is doing that.

Premises are supposed to support and give warrent to a conclusion.

When you correctly claim that "it takes too long to recharge them,
compared with the rate at which they are being discharged with all
those cars heading down the interstate" you are simply assuming that
the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises

Nope, I'm rubbing your nose in the fact that that is true.

and this does not constitute evidence for that conclusion;

Never said it was the evidence, it is the fact tho.

the implied conclusion that since the unequal times of use and charge, then there
will not be enough space to charge all these batteries on a massive scale.

I never ever said anything like that either.

Maybe you are implying that the cost would be disproportionate
to existing energy production an distribution methods?

Nope, that its just not feasible to charge that many batterys using solar.

When you say not feasable do you have at least a ball park figure to
shine some light on how absurd my proposition looks in light of your
contention about my proposal?

Just look at the amount of solar that falls on the swap site
and assume a perfect collection of all of that solar. There
just isnt enough of it with a swap station on an interstate.

And even if there was, even doing the charging using the grid wont fly either.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

Just more mindless silly shit.

The Appeal to Ridicule

It isnt even that.

is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument."

Its mindless silly shit anyway.

If we consider your argument it would be like saying that grammar is silly,

Nope, nothing like.

but you would have to continue using it else your words would be nonsense.
Afraid your trapped with logic since all arguments you propose necessarily
are constructed logically.

Wrong again.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html

Just more mindless silly shit that has absolutely nothing to do with what is being discussed.

Suppose the battery racks were being charged 24 hours a day.

They cant be with solar charging.

What if water was superheated and then stored in
thermoses and then de- pressurized to allow boiling
at night, and then run steam engines to turn generators.

There just isnt enough solar to charge that many batterys that way.

How much solar is available

Even you should be able to find that for yourself.

and how mush is usable.

Just assume it all is, it still wont work.

Please explain, is it the amount of space required

For the solar collection, yes, with doing it at the swap stations.

There just isnt enough solar falling on the swap station to
charge all those batterys in a swap station on an interstate.

or would all these batteries use up the energy of all available light on earth?

Corse they wouldnt.

Actually scrap that, are you saying that the number of
batteries and solar charging infrastructure needed to
charge in the daytime would be impossible to produce?

Nope.

Oh. Well I concede that I don't know as much about this
subject as you people, but I noticed some shakee logic

No you didnt.

and responded.

Made a complete fool of yourself, actually.

You have not produced any evidence to support that position yet.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

If The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply
ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted,
exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position,

It isnt.

and this sort of "reasoning" is fallacious

It isnt reasoning and isnt fallacious. Its rubbing your
nose in the FACT that you are thrashing a straw man.

because attacking a distorted version of a position
simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself

It isnt MEANT to be an attack on the position itself.

One might as well expect an attack on
a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person;

Utterly mangled all over again.

then please point to where I did that so I can stop doing that.

I never ever ever said that you did that.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Just more mindless silly shit that has absolutely nothing to do with what is being discussed.

Of course I am not imagining some back yard thing here but
charging areas everywhere, I mean major electric companies.

If you're going to charge them from the grid, there isnt
any point in recharging them centrally, it makes a lot more
sense to recharge them at the battery swapping stations.

Thats like saying that gas stations should refine their
oil and gas from crude to eliminate distribution charges.

Nope, nothing like. Its completely trivial to distribute the
charging to the battery swapping stations when you are
recharging them from the grid. Its nothing like that with
oil refinerys which dont work at the level of gas stations.

It makes sense to distribute gasoline from refinerys instead
of trying to have a refinery at each gas station, but makes
no sense at all to be moving the batterys to a central recharge
station when its so easy to have a recharger at each battery
swapping station when the recharging is done from the grid.

Well I concede that at some stations, that are very
large for whatever reason, could charge from the grid,

They dont have to be very large.

but others would be trucked in, as when the
stations need to be smaller for whatever reason.

Wrong again, and that would be completely unviable.

I think my reasoning behind that was that we want
battery packs available in as many places as gas is now.

Perfectly possible to charge the batterys at all of those if you are doing that from the grid.

Pity it wont be viable anyway.

For that matter you sound like one of those cynics complaining when the automobile
was invented that they would never be able to replace the horse and buggy.

Then you need to get your ears tested, BAD.

OK, if you don't sound like one of them, there were
people who believed that it would never be possible
to replace harses and buggies with gas powered autos.

There were some that believe that we are visited by martians too. So what ?

The book I am thinking about has a vast amount of quotes from people who
were skeptical of the major inventions we use daily now, when they were new.

And there were also plenty that had enough of a
clue to realise that powered cars were viable too.

Replacing gas this ay wouldn't be some small project.

And wouldnt be viable either.

Here is where some argument is needed instead of merely heckling
down an evidence based argument with appeals to ignoratio.

Wrong again. YOU proposed the silly impractical scheme.

I am not claiming that you doing a straw man on my argument
but I can honestly tell you that I never dwelled upon the idea
that all batteries must be trucked in when I made this theory up.

It aint even viable if the batterys are charged from the mains at the swap statons.

YOU get to show how it can be done viably.

THATS how it works.

I agree, but first we need a defnition of viable to satisfy the conditions of the case.

Nope, viable means that it will work. Try a dictionary.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

Just more mindless silly shit that misses the point utterly.

Same stuff you must use to present any clear idea.

You're lying now.

Its clled grammar/rhetoric/logic

Nope, nothing like it.

Suppose that it were possible to charge enough batteries a day
to supply every car,billions of them, so they could be driven 24
hours a day? Would that be the possible limit, I doubt it.

You'd have a problem with the fact that the charging takes longer than the discharging.

If we replace the subject and predicate of your argument with X and Y we see how weak it is.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a clue.

Whenever you present an argument in any way, is has a form.

You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist wankers ?

In predicate logic, which you are using whether you know it or not,
you are using common grammar with subjects and predicates.
Sometimes argument forms can be shown to be sufficient but
not necessary, but they appear to be both.

You'll end up completely blind if you dont watch out.

http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e01.htm

Just more completely irrelevant silly shit.

Maybe you could learn of a way to say what your trying to say with more strength.

Or maybe you could go and shove your head up a dead bear's arse.

Are you saying that you are arguing with good logic
and your arguments don't need to be any stronger,

Yep.

or are you saying that you are giving up and resorting to ridicule?

Nope, there is no ridicule there.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html

Just more completely irrelevant silly shit.

How you say it has as much strength as the descriptive/explaination
that; refining crude into gas takes longer than burning it in an
engine therefore it is impractical and may be impossible.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a clue.

I you sure you might not have missed the important
point about the strange logical move you made?

Just more of your mindless wanking.

You could easily remake you statement in an airtight fashion
which I would not be able to avoid instead of dragging this
superflous proof thing in front of us as a distraction.

Or I could tell you to shove your head up a dead bear's arse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud8JZLgNFHE
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7855053520463952175
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nGheClD-lY&feature=user

Just more mindless silly stuff that misses the point utterly.

Sorry put that in with reference to another post in this thread.

Nope, it was referring to those urls of yours.

The urls were in reference to boiling water and the further possibility of
storing highly heated water in thermoses to run steam engines at night.

Like I said, misses the point utterly.

Can you clearly state the point so we can be clear.

Already did.

Was it a point I or you made?

You made, stupid.

Steam engines which turn generators, this without solar panels or batteries.

Like I said, it makes a hell of a lot more sense to use nukes instead.

Can you explain why it makes more sense to use nukes, in what sense I mean?

Much more economically viable.

Sorry about the logic ribbing

Its actually desperate wanking.

Welcome to the philosophy world.

Wankers world, actually.

but I come from alt.philosophy and I am going into normal mode now loc.

Wrong again. You've actually got your dick in your hand
and will end up completely blind if you dont watch out.

But I have been arguing in alt.philosophy for many years.

And making a complete fool of yourself all this time.

How could I be wrong?

Pathetic.

 

[Rod Speed]

DB <abc@some.net> wrote

Rod Speed wrote
Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote

Why not just charge battereis with solar put in racks of 20
warehouse charged universal racks electric cars of all kinds
switch out the racks 200 miles racks available every 20 miles
deposit on a rack 40 seconds to switch out the rack at a "station"

Not viable. Have you the remotest concept of how much solar would
be needed at each rack station, and how long it takes to charge the
rack again and how many cars would be swapping the rack on even
a single decent interstate ?

It wouldnt even be viable with nukes for the charging.

It would make more sense to use nukes to produce hydrogen and use that instead.

And again, this rod has no numbers.......

How odd that you never ever have yourself, troll.

 

[JANA]

Why not simply get a reed relay?

To wind an efficient electromagnet is not practical. You will have to use a
very thing gauge of wire, and calculate the proper number of turns and
select the proper core type. Then you will have to task to properly wide the
coil.

You can take an old relay apart that uses the voltage you want and use the
electromagnet, but this may not be practical.

If you look on the web pages where they sell science experiment devices they
have electromagnets. Most of what they sell is on the large size.

--

JANA
_____


"lerameur" <lerameur@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e8cba1a2-1aa8-4e4f-ba59-b9624d250236@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Hello,

I made myself a small electromagnet to activate a reed switch using a
6v supply. The problem is that I am pulling 3 amps, I do not want the
electromagnet to be bigger by making more turns, I believe there are
such electromagnet on the market that can activate a reed switch with
current in the milliamps. anybody know such device, I looked at
digikey and mouse but I did not find anything under electro magnet.

thanks

ken

 

[christofire]

"cliff wright" <c.c.wright@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:488c699f$1@clear.net.nz...

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

In sci.physics Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

In sci.physics kronecker@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

Amateurs are the worst kind! etc.

Stone me! What a mess we can get into sometimes here.
Lets point out a few facts about VLF signals (below say 50KHz).
1. Yes indeed. You need a "dirty great" antenna. These frequencies have
been used since almost the beginning of radio and antenna designs of
enormous proportions have gone with them.
In 1907/8 Marconi used 45KHz for transatlantic service from Ireland
and used an antenna about 3Km long by 1Km wide with about 50 Kw of rotary
gap spark power. Later the German staion at Nauen used directly generated
24 KHz and an antenna like a vast skeletal circus tent 200 m high at the
centre and 75 m high at the edges covering many hectares of ground.
This could be recieved by a crystal set in South America.
Megawatts while common to overcome antenna losses are mainly used to make
the service as absolutely reliable as possible.
Also early means of generation like arc transmitters tended to be
easy to build in high power forms. Like the US navy's 0.5MW staions built
about the end of WW1, and the arc system was inherently limited to low
frequencies.
The signal is apparently ducted between the ground and lower ionospher
which explains the world wide coverage.
ALL these signals have to be low speed telegraphy of some kind. The
bandwidth of the tuned antennas alone would preclude the use of modulated
signals, and ther simply isn't the spectrum space for sidebands in their
usual sense.
The lowest frequency I have ever come across, and I have had a
professional and amateur interest in it for many years is 9KHz
although in practice around 12 KHz is getting near the practical limit.
It is of course simply VERY much easier to radiate higher frequencies.
As soon as Hams discovered the properties of short waves in the early
1920's most of this ELF disappeared except for specialist applications
like submarine communication. BTW I've always wondered what sort of
antenna the sub uses for reception? I bet that's still classified perhaps?
Cliff Wright ZL1BDA ex G3NIA

Take a look at the RN Radar and Radio Museum pages at
http://www.rnmuseumradarandcommunications2006.org.uk/PAGE%2032.htm. There's
some information on a variety of different types of LF/VLF receiving
antenna, the ALK for example, which apparently used loops attached to a
buoy. Lots of reference to the 10 to 40 kHz frequency range here. Also it
seems fairly well known that transmission of VLF signals to UK submarines
was moved from BT's Rugby station to VTC's Anthorn station
http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/anthorn.php in 2003 or thereabouts. The
frequency of these transmissions seems to be variously reported as 16 kHz,
19.6 kHz, etc. - perhaps it's FSK.

Incidentally, the remark above 'the arc system was inherently limited to low
frequencies' is probably incorrect. The arc was just a means of making and
breaking a circuit and history records that some of the earliest
demonstrations of radio (Lodge and others) were carried out in lecture
theatres using a sparking induction coil and a short dipole antenna (two
plates) transmitting to a nearby loop antenna. The average wavelength may
have been around a metre or less.

Chris

 

In sci.physics Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

In sci.physics Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

In sci.physics kronecker@yahoo.co.uk wrote:



Amateurs are the worst kind! There is not way to demodulate double
side-band supressed carrier (esp at low SNRs).

Nonsense but irrelevant as virtually no one uses double side band
supressed carrier and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the previous
discussion.

Double side band was played with about 40 years ago and essentially
abandoned as ssb is more efficient both in bandwidth and power.

Most all supressed carrier is done single side band.

Vestigial sideband is used extensively as in analog TV broadcast.

Though oddly enough, the problem with SSB is that it's hard to tune.
Not in terms of receiving something listenable to, but to tune it
exactly. There is nothing to lock onto, so one always has to make
do with "that's about right". It's fine for voice since mistuning
only makes someone sound higher or lower pitched. But music is
horrible since you do notice when it's mistuned.

Why would anyone in their right mind transmit music with SSB?

Your efficiency, both in terms of power and in terms of spectrum
utilization. You only need one sideband for content, so why send
the extra sideband (redundancy aside). Almost forty years ago,
shortwave broadcast stations did start talking about and/or playing
with SSB, to make better use of their allocated spectrum. Shortwave
broadcast stations transmit music as part of their programming.

Yeah, and it isn't what I would call listenable.

Music is generally about fidelity which means bandwidth.

One of the primary reasons for using SSB is to reduce bandwidth.

Which you get when you drop the other sideband, and instant halving
of the bandwidth used.

There is nothing inherently narrow bandwidth about SSB. It does
tend to be narrow because you are mostly transmitting only voice,
and that doesn't take up much bandwidth. And it was certainly
easier to restrict bandwdith with SSB, since in the early days
those phasing methods were so limited that they couldn't deal
with wide bandwidth, and it's easier to make a crystal filter
that is narrow than wide.

Non sequitur.

First you say it is an instant half the bandwidth, then you say there
is nothing inherently narrow about it.

You can't have it both ways.

The early days were a half century ago and crystal filters were
mostly replaced with DSP decades ago.

So long as only voice was used for SSB, nobody gave this thought.
But once shortwave broadcasters started to play with SSB, then
of course they had to reveal that SSB could indeed be wide bandwidth
(yet still narrower than an equivalent DSB signal, since the
extra sideband is never sent).

The redundant sideband, as I posted about earlier, allows for
perfect tuning of the reinserted carrier. Plus the redundant
sideband, with the right detector, allows for a certain level
of frequency diversity reception, and of course the redundancy
means one sideband may arrive at your receiver without interference
while you have to live with what you get if one sideband is
sent.

I doubt you are going to see much benefit from a frequency diversity
of 6 Khz at 10 Mhz.

But that is precisely what causes a lot of problems with AM with full
carrier over long distances. The sideband(s) arrive while the carrier
fades, and then there's not enough carrier to properly demodulate
it. You have to reinsert the carrier at the receiver, so all
those synchronous detectors have determined where to place it by
using the sidebands as the information.

Non sequitur.

You've already said with the right detector you don't need the carrier
at all.

This isn't a guess, DSB when demodulated properly is seen as a diversity
method. Obviously not as good as transmitting on two very distinct
frequencies, but it's there, and a lot simpler than having two
transmitters.

Michael

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[ian field]

"lerameur" <lerameur@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f5b9ed25-9e7e-4cd0-9571-7f51107e7969@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

Hello,

I am attempting to charge a battery and I would like to have a
feedback on the approach.
I have a 18v supply coming from a generator and want to charge a 12v
battery.
First I cannot constant charge the 12v battery at that potential.
Second I though of building a sort of pulse charger so I can charge
the 12v battery with lets say 18v or even higher with pulses.
Therefore I decided to make a boost converter, therefore 18v to the
converter outputs about 55v.

You'd probably do better dropping 18V down to 12V with a buck regulator -
not a boost converter. The market is full of chips that do this with a
minimum of external components.

A simple start point for a home brew if you want to regulate current, start
with a pass transistor and buck coil, then use a ground sensing comparator
with a little hysteresis to detect the volt drop on a current sensing
resistor in the -VE rail, use the comparator to flip a S/R flip-flop which
switches the pass transistor on and off.

 

[Rod Speed]

BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:

The battery (100kWh) costs $20,000 in volume (price in 2003).
Heavily used ZEBRAs can cycle about 1000x before they need to be
replaced. That is a capital write-off of about $0.0002 per kWh.
That's negligent.

So, kind of emberrasing for an engineer : I made a factor 1000 mistake here
o(

I'm not a tweaker.

Yep, you're just a wanker.

Two orders of magnitude, OK, but _three_ orders of magnitude, well, that's stepping over the line.

My diesel heat content in another post was off by a factor of three,

A Jap would at least have the decency to disembowel itself.

well within my margin of error.

You're your 'parents' error.

Battery cost of $20,000 for 100kWh is $200/kWh.
With 1000 charges lifetime, that's $0.20/kWh.
That's NOT negligent.

Diesel will go _up_ 20 cents/kW-hr over the next year or so.

Nope, you watch.

The idea that we should wait another year when we _know
for sure_ the cost is going up is just plain $%#$@! stupid.

The idea that anyone should do anything as a result of you
wanking with your calculator with numbers you have plucked
out of your arse is even more just plain fucking stupid.

It's some kind of mental blindness going around.

You were warned about what your wanking would do to your eyesight, child.

For awhile I toyed with the idea that Big Oil, like Big Tobacco,
paid Hollywood to somehow brainwash the public but that would
be nearly impossible with farms which are run like a business.

The only explanation is everyone is in some kind of state of denial.

The obvious explanation is that you spend all your time with your dick in your hand.

 

[Rod Speed]

BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:

Battery cost of $20,000 for 100kWh is $200/kWh.
With 1000 charges lifetime, that's $0.20/kWh.
That's NOT negligent.

Diesel will go _up_ 20 cents/kW-hr over the next year or so.

The idea that we should wait another year when we _know for sure_
the cost is going up is just plain $%#$@! stupid.

The idea that something can be put into place which will phase out
diesel in a year is what's stupid.

Then why did you suggest it?

Care to try another strawman?

I haven't covered this issue yet but I'm guessing

Wanking, actually.

it would take up to six years, about the time diesel is
$25/gallon, to electrify most basic food crop farms.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about food crop farming.

It makes a hell of a lot more sense to grow biodiesel instead for those.

Doesnt even need any modification of the farming machinery.

In overall costs, grid battery is already competitive or cheaper than diesel in many areas.

You're lying, as always.

It would be foolish to replace an old diesel with a new diesel
when grid battery will not skyrocket in operating cost.

Makes a hell of a lot more sense to produce biodiesel, stupid.

In the meantime, there are lots of folks who are
working very hard to find a solution to the problem

The problems have in fact all been solved and we're just waiting for
the price of oil to get high enough for long enough to make them viable.

You don't think intellectual property requires work,
both the original concept as well as the development?

The problems have in fact all been solved and we're just waiting for
the price of oil to get high enough for long enough to make them viable.

You think copyright laws and patent rights are a scam?

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

Maybe Madison screwed up with Art. I, Sec. 8 of the U. S. Constitution?

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

Or are you so ashamed of your "contributions" you won't share them with anyone?

Maybe you are a loser in your own mind.

If you are a loser in your mind, then you are certainly a loser in my mind.

You'll end up completely blind if you dont watch out, child.

 

[Rod Speed]

BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:

That could drop with cheap PV.

So such thing yet exists.

One plant in San Jose puts out a GW a year.

Pity it was nothing like CHEAP.

There's a limit to how much PV you can put out before the price starts to drop.

Wrong again.

In sunny areas the bus could be plastered with PV which would be a significant savings.

A kW or so ? Please !

A _sunny_ area, not some place where it rains so much a tennis match can last until 9:30 at night.

Thats still all you'd get even there.

 

[Paul E. Schoen]

"lerameur" <lerameur@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3327c184-983c-4837-8d2a-f567726e3ff6@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

On Jul 27, 2:57 pm, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:
lerameur wrote:
Hello,

I am attempting to charge a battery and I would like to have a
feedback on the approach.
I have a 18v supply coming from a generator and want to charge a 12v
battery.
First I cannot constant charge the 12v battery at that potential.
Second I though of building a sort of pulse charger so I can charge
the 12v battery with lets say 18v or even higher with pulses.
Therefore I decided to make a boost converter, therefore 18v to the
converter outputs about 55v.
Third, the problem with step 2 above is that the current stop flowing
through the inductor of my boost converter, I have a three amp current
from the generator which I do not want to decrease or stop. I also get
over 17v at the batteries.. which I stopped immediately.

Is this a question of timing, or should I approach the problem in a
totally different way.?

ken

You should approach the problem in a totally different way. Mostly by
deciding what you need and pursuing it, instead of flopping around
trying this and that and the other thing and wondering what's going
wrong.

First, you should think about the battery chemistry. Since you didn't
mention it, I assume you're not thinking hard about it. If you have a
6-cell lead-acid battery, then you almost certainly want a constant
voltage charger, or a current-limited constant voltage charger. If
you're charging a 10-cell NiCd pack then you can get by with a constant
current; if you're charging a 10-cell NiMH pack then you probably want a
constant current with peak detection, or a _really_ low current constant
current charger and an acceptance of reduced battery life.

Once you've figured out what battery chemistry you're dealing with you
should look to the flavor of battery that you're using -- automotive
batteries have slightly different requirements than sealed lead-acid,
high-capacity NiCds often can't be charged as fast as high-current ones,
etc.

Get yourself a copy of "Rechargeable Batteries Applications Handbook",
it discusses chemistries and charging methods (although it was written
before Li-Ion and Li-Po batteries came along, so you're on your own with
those).

Finally, once you know what the charger _should_ do, _then_ start
thinking about how to make it do the right thing.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Serviceshttp://www.wescottdesign.com

Do you need to implement control loops in software?
"Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" gives you just what it
says.
See details athttp://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html

Hi,

I am using a 12v sealed lead acid battery (being charge).
My aim is to charge this battery then the circuit will charge a
second 12v battery. Yes I want to do this way.
I have a Pic chip that determines the battery voltage and transfer the
charging to the desired battery.
the problem now is that the pic chip sees a fully charged battery when
in fact it only begun charging.
The reason for pulse charging, I read it was better for batteries..
nevertheless, my pulse charging seems not to be working as it sees the
maximum charge at the pole of the battery. How do they do it so that
the battery only retains the average voltage on the charging battery..

You could add a switchable load resistor to test the battery for state of
charge. Once the voltage under a moderate load is measured, you can apply
the recommended charging current for a period of time, or until the target
voltage is reached, at which point the charger would switch to a float
voltage charge. You could switch in the test load from time to time to
check the battery's condition.

Pulse charging should be OK, although I do not know if it has any benefits
or drawbacks. But you need to measure the average voltage of the battery to
determine its condition while charging, and the pulses may interfere with
an accurate measurement. You can use many A/D readings and perform software
averaging, but you will also need some RC integration to reduce spikes and
noise. If the PIC is supplying the PWM, you may need to synchronize the A/D
readings to include the voltage during the charging pulse as well as that
when it is off.

There should be design notes on the Microchip website, or you could check
the user forums at:
http://forum.microchip.com/

There are 63 hits for "Battery charge":
http://search.microchip.com/searchapp/searchhome.aspx?q=battery%20charge&id=9

And there is a "Battery management design center":
http://www.microchip.com/stellent/idcplg?IdcService=SS_GET_PAGE&nodeId=2087

Paul

 

[Zagan]

Ken,

I use to work for a company that made pneumatic and hydraulic cylinders
(with rods coming out of one or both ends). We used reed switches and
electronic magnetic sensitive sensors to detect the rod(s) extension (see:
http://www.fabco-air.com/products/sensors/sensors.html). Since I was the
only engineer there that knew one end of a battery from the other, I was in
charge of designing these magnetic sensors. We used a magnet ring mounted
around the piston heads of our cylinders and the end user could place the
sensors wherever alone the length of the cylinder to detect the extension(s)
of the rod(s) and send that signal to a PLC or whatever.

Anyway, my point here is that perhaps you could use a solenoid or similar
device to move a permanent magnet back and forth to activate/deactivate the
reed switch. Magnets are cheap as are most low-power solenoids. There is no
need to make your own electromagnet to operate the reed switch. And 3 amps
is certainly excessive when some current in the milliamp range would do the
trick as described above. Look up solenoid at digikey, etc.

Hope this helps,

// Jim
http://members.atlantic.net/~jcd/
http://www.writingservicesunlimited.com/

"lerameur" <lerameur@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e8cba1a2-1aa8-4e4f-ba59-b9624d250236@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

Hello,

I made myself a small electromagnet to activate a reed switch using a
6v supply. The problem is that I am pulling 3 amps, I do not want the
electromagnet to be bigger by making more turns, I believe there are
such electromagnet on the market that can activate a reed switch with
current in the milliamps. anybody know such device, I looked at
digikey and mouse but I did not find anything under electro magnet.

thanks

ken

 

[Rod Speed]

BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:

That could drop with cheap PV.

So such thing yet exists.

One plant in San Jose puts out a GW a year.

---
So what's the conversion efficiency of the PV

They claim 15%.

and how much power does
it use to "put out" that GW?

It's not significant. You are too ignorant of technology to ask the
right questions.

. . .

With an insolation of 1kW/m? at noon and a conversion efficiency of
10%, what would be the total power output of the array from sunrise
to sunset?

Show your work, please.

12 meter bus with PV on top and sides casting a 36 m^2
shadow equivalent normal to the sun heading east or west.

Utterly bogus.

At 15% that's over 5 kW at noon.

Nope. Nothing like it.

Maybe 20 - 25 kW-hrs/day

Nope, nothing like it.

saving two gallons of diesel.

Nope, nothing like it.

$10/day today.

Nope, nothing like it.

$17/day in two years.

Nope, nothing like it.

$50/day in 6 years.

Nope, nothing like it.

Just more stupid numbers plucked from your arse. We can tell that from the smell.

 

[Rod Speed]

BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:

Battery cost of $20,000 for 100kWh is $200/kWh.
With 1000 charges lifetime, that's $0.20/kWh.
That's NOT negligent.

Diesel will go up 20 cents/kW-hr over the next year or so.

Another lie.

The idea that we should wait another year when we know for sure
the cost is going up is just plain $%#$@! stupid.

The idea that something can be put into place which
will phase out diesel in a year is what's stupid.

Then why did you suggest it?

Care to try another strawman?

I haven't covered this issue yet but I'm guessing

Wanking, actually.

it would take up to six years, about the time diesel is
$25/gallon, to electrify most basic food crop farms.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about food crop farming.

It makes a hell of a lot more sense to grow biodiesel instead for those.

Doesnt even need any modification of the farming machinery.

In overall costs, grid battery is already competitive or cheaper than diesel in many areas.

You're lying, as always.

We've done the math.

You've actually plucked some stupid numbers out of your arse and wanked with them in your calculator.

Diesel is already 35 cents / kW hr.

Another lie.

Battery + grid is only 30 cents / kW hr, 27 cents in the TVA area.

Another lie. You cant ignore the cost of the battery, liar.

And that doesnt qualify as many areas either.

It would be foolish to replace an old diesel with a new diesel
when grid battery will not skyrocket in operating cost.

Makes a hell of a lot more sense to produce biodiesel,

Where is this bio diesel being produced?

On any farm that chooses to do that.

Is there a pipeline that delivers it anywhere?

Dont need to have a pipeline if they produce it themselves, fool.

Grid battery is all off the shelf.

So is biodiesel, you stupid pig ignorant child.

And all electric farming machinery aint.

 

[Rod Speed]

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote

I haven't covered this issue yet but I'm guessing it
would take up to six years, about the time diesel is
$25/gallon, to electrify most basic food crop farms.

If diesel reached $25 / gal, the world economy would be in tatters

I doubt it. We'd just use rail a lot more than we currently do etc.

and we'd have much bigger things to worry about.

I doubt that too. We'd just see lots of biodiesel produced.

Did you know that something like 30% of all fuel oil is used
in SHIPPING. No more trade with Asia (fuel costs too high

Thats not true. The sea freight is a small part of the retail price.

- already sea transport can account for 10% of the FOB - destination cost),

Not with the sort of stuff we buy from asia it doesnt.

no more cruise lines,

The cost of the fuel is a small part of their costs.

you name it.

The Arabs aren't stupid, they know who pays for the modernisation
(and bombing) of their countries. It won't go that high.

It aint set by the arabs, and yes, it wont get that high.

 

[Rod Speed]

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote

Maybe you are a loser in your own mind.

You are simply lost in your mind.

He hasnt got a mind, just ear to ear dog shit.

You are typical of someone who knows nothing about engineering,
mechanics and accounting and simple practicalities.

Indeed.

 

[Rod Speed]

BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:

That could drop with cheap PV.

So such thing yet exists.

One plant in San Jose puts out a GW a year.

Nothing like cheap PV.

And it's area is ?

I'ld assume it is the 15% rating applied to the 1kW/m^2 figure,
6.7 m^2/kW X 1 GW X 1,000,000 kW/GW = 6.7 million m^2.

They claim they can print PV at paper mill speeds,
the PV comes flying off the line at 50 mph.

Pure fantasy. Show us the plant doing anything like that.

There's a limit to how much PV you can put out before the price starts to drop.

In sunny areas the bus could be plastered with PV which would be a significant savings.

A kW or so ? Please !

A _sunny_ area, not some place where it rains so much a tennis match can last until 9:30 at night.

Let's say you can fit 60m2 of PV on a roof of a bus.
At PEAK insolation (mid-day) it will produce at typical
efficiencies a total of 9 kW.

You get nothing like that in practice.

About 12 hp.

Sounds like a big bus. Maybe those double decker buses would work.

Nope. They've got the same roof as single deckers, stupid.

Average daily insolation over the year might run at 35-50kWh
for the whole bus in the sunnier parts of the USA. Pitiful.

It'll run the AC.

Nope.

No one ever said post peak would be a rose garden.

You wouldnt know what a real rose garden was if you fell into it.

The expense and maintenance costs -

Graffitti artists might lower the efficiency.

Just a tad.

HUGE.

There's that word again.

There's you wanking, again.

 

[Rod Speed]

You wouldnt know what a real rose garden was if you fell into it.

BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:

If you don't like my solutions then post your own.

Or piss on your stupid wanking from a great height.

Either lead follow or get out of the way.

Let go of your dick before you end up completely blind, child.

 

[Rod Speed]

BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:

If you don't like my solutions then post your own.

Already did that.

Biodiesel for farming.

LPG and CNG for cars.

Exploit the oil sands and shale oil when the price of oil stays high enough for long enough to make that economically
viable.

Convert coal to liquid fuel when the price of oil stays high enough for long enough to make that economically viable.

Replace coal fired power stations with nukes if you care about the CO2 emissions from power stations.

Heat houses with electricty from nukes so the LPG and CNG can be used as a transport fuel.

Generate hydrogen using nukes when the price of LPG and CNG is getting high enough to make that economically viable.

Dont bother with solar when on the grid unless its cheaper than power
from nukes and that has to allow for the fact that is mostly not available
when its most in demand in most modern first world countrys.

Use solar in some non grid situations like RVs running on biodiesel or LPG or CNG to run the engine.

 

[Rod Speed]

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

Rod Speed wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

Did you know that something like 30% of all fuel oil is used
in SHIPPING. No more trade with Asia (fuel costs too high

Thats not true. The sea freight is a small part of the retail price.

That's not what I said.

Yes it is.

I said % of usage.

That was a comment on your second sentance. Thats why I broke your para there.

In comparison aviation is 'only' 8% or so. Therefore
SHIPPING usage has a MAJOR effect on fuel oil price.

Nope, because it isnt where the increased demand is.

- already sea transport can account for 10% of the FOB - destination cost),

Not with the sort of stuff we buy from asia it doesnt.

You must be getting some damn good deals then !

Nope, just high value containerised 'stuff'

no more cruise lines,

The cost of the fuel is a small part of their costs.

Maybe in their case.

No maybe about it. Their costs are completely dominated by wages and food etc.

you name it.

The Arabs aren't stupid, they know who pays for the modernisation
(and bombing) of their countries. It won't go that high.

It aint set by the arabs, and yes, it wont get that high.

Ever heard of OPEC ?

OPEC doesnt determine the price of oil.

 

[Rod Speed]

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

Rod Speed wrote
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote

Maybe you are a loser in your own mind.

You are simply lost in your mind.

He hasnt got a mind, just ear to ear dog shit.

You are typical of someone who knows nothing about engineering,
mechanics and accounting and simple practicalities.

Indeed.

You can count most politicians in on that list too !

All of them in fact. AlGore in spades.

Maybe we should get them a 'short bus' ?

I've always preferred the chinese approach. Bullet in the back of the neck and send the bill for the bullet to the
relos.