Chip with simple program for Toy

[Rod Speed]

Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

Hybridization is a minor advantage on the highway. ?An old diesel
Rabbit gets slightly less mpg as a new Prius on the highway.

Nevertheless, if it becomes politically correct to go up a 6%
grade at
8 mph, a full series hybid truck may appear. ?On the down hill the
energy could be regenerated to recharge the battery instead of
overheating the brakes. ?But right now a series hybrid truck would
require a multi ton battery to get 80,000 lbs over a mountain at
what is currently considered an acceptable speed ~ 35 mph.

Only about 1 ton of battery actually (to get 80,000 lbs to the top
of a 6000 ft mountain pass.
In actuallity, a smaller battery would suffice since the power
generator can help on the way up.

Either way it's good use of the battery, since on the way down it gets
charged back up to the brim, ready for the next mountain range !

Please understand that a series hybrid rig with battery can go up
the mountains much FASTER than it's crawling diesel-equivalents,
since the electric motors can be more powerfull than it's diesel engine.

Only if you pay for the suitably rated motors of course ! ? ? ? ?;~).

Invest in copper. I somehow got on some list and was
recently offered dinner in exchange for my "vast" political
influence to help get legislation to open a copper mine.

After a chuckle I decided I'd fix my own food and not be tainted with conflicts of interest.

Mind you, that's a flexibility of such vehicles. If you don't run those routes you can use smaller motors.

Unless it's easy to swap out/upgrade/downgrade the electric motors
and/ or engines, economies of scale may wipe out such niche markets.

SW airlines has one or 2 types of aircraft so all their pilots/mechanics
can work any of their planes.

They might not be the only airline that has gone that route.

This is why they are successful.

Their success is about a hell of a lot more than just that.

Similarly, large carriers who drive everywhere will want to buy all one kind of truck.

Or they might just have more than one so they dont have to
pay the much higher price for all their trucks when bugger all
of them are used on that particular very demanding route.

They'll want something that can climb 6,000 feet at 35 mph.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof of why you
dont run a trucking operation, or anything else at all either.

On the other hand, how does a small country
like Sweden get into so many large markets?

Because they have fuck all alternative to survive.

No one ever comments on that phenomenon.

Wrong, as always. Plenty have commented on Taiwan in spades in the regard.

My pet theory is they are snowed in for 9 months of the year
and cannot do anything except go to the library and work.

Have fun explaining how come the adjacent small countrys
that have the same problem dont get the same result.

In the summer only the bus drivers work in Sweden.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a clue about anything at all, ever.

 

[Rod Speed]

Dan Drake <dd@dandrake.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

John's original, still right at the top, is just plain wrong
on WHEN that collection of silly senile old farts realised
that the earth does in fact revolved around the sun.

Sorry for the confusion.

There is no confusion and there still isnt. You were and still are just plain wrong.

OK, then, instead of your bluster, let's see your evidence.

YOU made the original stupid claim.

YOU get to provide the evidence.

THATS how it works.

What I was referring to was the Roman Catholic Church's
official admission that Geocentrism was wrong

Yes, that was always clear.

and, AIUI, that acknowledgement only occurred a few years ago.

And that is where you were always just plain wrong.
It happened a LONG time before that.

OK, then, instead of your bluster, let's see your evidence.

YOU made the original stupid claim.

YOU get to provide the evidence.

THATS how it works.

Like I said, what actually happened only a few years ago, was that
they did officially admit that Galileo had been very badly treated.

OK, then, instead of your bluster, let's see your evidence.

YOU made the original stupid claim.

YOU get to provide the evidence.

THATS how it works.

Small comfort for Galileo, who knew he was right, beyond a shadow of doubt,

And he wasnt alone in recognising that at that time. The evidence was very clear.

That's not the point.

Corse it is.

but was forced to perjure himself

He didnt even perjure himself.

In order to save his life, he was forced to lie about his
beliefs before a legislating body, which is perjury.

Wrong, as always.

Do you actually mean anything by that statement? If so, could you tell us what it is?

Pathetic.

I mean, I assume you know what the word "recant" means.

Irrelevant to what the word perjury means.

Obviously you know that Galileo recanted, formally, under oath, before witnesses,
with a transcript being taken, the authenticity of which has never been questioned

Different matter entirely to whether that qualifys as perjury.

-- unless you have now decided to question whether he really said it

Nope.

(in which case it would be nice to know on what grounds
you question it, in opposition to everyone else in the world
and every historian of science that ever considered it).

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

BTW I am not arguing that the Church didn't recognize the Earth's motion till the 1990s.

That fool Fields is clearly doing just that.

After all, when they allowed (in fact, _ordered_) the publication of Galileo's work undiluted in 1822,

They didnt get to ORDER a damned thing.

it was not because the Inquisition had been converted into disciples
of John Locke with a firm belief in Voltaire's famous principle which
he never actually said, about defending to the death your right to be
wrong. It was because they knew they looked too damn stupid by then

As I said, a separate matter entirely to when even those fools
had realised that the earth did in fact revolve around the sun.

-- just as Galileo had warned their predecessors, though
they were not about to say that out loud. And in only 170
years more, the Church got around to saying it out loud.

You cant even manage to grasp just what 'it' is actually being discussed.

This, of course, is a small point in itself; it's just that your
uncompromising and unfounded statements tend to, you know,
make it look as if you don't really know what you're talking about.

You in spades when you cant even manage to work out just what is being discussed.

The senile old farts at Fordham U (your characterization, not mine;

I never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that.

I find a lot of highly respecatble scholarship in Romish
sources) have proved a convenient reference:

Pity its doesnt even comment on what is actually being discussed.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1630galileo.html

"...But since I, after having been admonished by this Holy Office
entirely to abandon the false opinion that the Sun was the centre
of the universe and immoveable, and that the Earth was not the
centre of the same and that it moved,... I did write and cause to
be printed a book in which I treat of the said already condemned
doctrine... : I have been judged vehemently suspected of heresy,
that is, of having held and believed that the Sun is the centre of
the universe and immoveable, and that the Earth is not the
centre of the same, and that it does move.

"Nevertheless, wishing to remove from the minds of your
Eminences and all faithful Christians this vehement suspicion
reasonably conceived against me, I abjure with sincere heart
and unfeigned faith, I curse and detest the said errors and heresies...

"I Galileo Galilei aforesaid have abjured, sworn, and promised, and
hold myself bound as above; and in token of the truth, with my own
hand have subscribed the present schedule of my abjuration, and have
recited it word by word. In Rome, at the Convent della Minerva, this
22nd day of June, 1633.

"I, GALILEO GALILEI, have abjured as above, with my own hand."

What part of "recanted" or "abjured" or "under oath" do you not understand?

What part of PERJURY do you not understand ?

Or is your claim that he really had joined the senile old farts in actually *believing* this crap?

Nope. I was JUST commenting there on whether what he said qualifys as PERJURY.

It would be odd if you were to say that, considering your assertion
(true enough) that there were other people who knew it was nonsense;
this would make Galileo a more senile of fart than those people.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

Hence it's hard to figure out what you *do* mean.

Only for those with nothing viable between their ears.

 

[Rob Dekker]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:48BC6A85.E9FF9C31@hotmail.com...

Rob Dekker wrote:

BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote in message

Hybridization is a minor advantage on the highway. An old diesel
Rabbit gets slightly less mpg as a new Prius on the highway.

Nevertheless, if it becomes politically correct to go up a 6% grade at
8 mph, a full series hybid truck may appear. On the down hill the
energy could be regenerated to recharge the battery instead of
overheating the brakes. But right now a series hybrid truck would
require a multi ton battery to get 80,000 lbs over a mountain at what
is currently considered an acceptable speed ~ 35 mph.


Only about 1 ton of battery actually (to get 80,000 lbs to the top of a 6000
ft mountain pass.
In actuallity, a smaller battery would suffice since the power generator can
help on the way up.
Either way it's good use of the battery, since on the way down it gets
charged back up to the brim, ready for the next mountain range !

Please understand that a series hybrid rig with battery can go up the
mountains much FASTER than it's crawling diesel-equivalents, since the
electric motors can be more powerfull than it's diesel engine.

Only if you pay for the suitably rated motors of course ! ;~).

I think that this is the MINIMUM requirement of a series hybrid big rig. It's electric motor have to be AT LEAST as strong (torque
and hp) as the standard diesel version. Otherwise why would anyone buy one ?

But since electric motors are much more compact than ICEs with similar strength, and they scale up very easily (does not add design
constraints to the truck), at only marginal expense, this (electric motor strength) should be the least of the problems.

Mind you, that's a flexibility of such vehicles. If you don't run those routes
you can use smaller motors.

You probably need these strong motors any way : for accelleration, and regenerative braking.
And once again, electric motors scale up easily, without much additional cost.

Graham

 

[Rob Dekker]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:48BC6AE3.4C90DDF5@hotmail.com...

Rob Dekker wrote:

"Eeyore"wrote
BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:
. Eeyore wrote

30-40% savings sounds very high for an average truck journey.

Not gonna happen on the highway, not even with full series which would
only work on flat land anyway.

Precisely my thinking.

How did you guys conclude that ?

How did you conclude otherwise ? Short of just believing a press release or
whatever.

Here is my reasoning :
Since the truck charges the battery when going down the mountain, then discharges going up the next, the fuel-saving benefits
(w.r.t. a standard diesel truck) of a well-designed series hybrid truck will be much more significant in mountain driving than in
'flat land' driving.

With powerfull electric motors, a small auxiliary power unit just strong enough to cruise the rig at 70mph flat, and a battery big
enough (100 kWh or so) to pull the truck up to the tallest mountain, a series hybrid truck is perfectly suited to handle mountain
work.

So a series hybrid should do even better in the mountains than on flat land (compared to a standard diesel rig).

Graham

 

[Rod Speed]

Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:48BC6AE3.4C90DDF5@hotmail.com...


Rob Dekker wrote:

"Eeyore"wrote
BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:
. Eeyore wrote

30-40% savings sounds very high for an average truck journey.

Not gonna happen on the highway, not even with full series which
would only work on flat land anyway.

Precisely my thinking.

How did you guys conclude that ?

How did you conclude otherwise ? Short of just believing a press
release or whatever.

Here is my reasoning :
Since the truck charges the battery when going down the mountain,
then discharges going up the next, the fuel-saving benefits (w.r.t. a
standard diesel truck) of a well-designed series hybrid truck will be
much more significant in mountain driving than in 'flat land'
driving.
With powerfull electric motors, a small auxiliary power unit just
strong enough to cruise the rig at 70mph flat, and a battery big
enough (100 kWh or so) to pull the truck up to the tallest mountain,
a series hybrid truck is perfectly suited to handle mountain work.

Nope, because of the massive battery thats needed to provide
enough power to get that massive weight up that mountain.

So a series hybrid should do even better in the mountains than on flat land (compared to a standard diesel rig).

That ignores the massive battery require to get it up the mountain.

 

[ian field]

"lerameur" <lerameur@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8f0ca425-2a8f-4e69-9765-b2da7daaa0fc@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 2, 5:15 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 12:16:36 -0700 (PDT), lerameur <leram...@yahoo.com
wrote:

Hello,

I am using a pic controller for a dialer project. My goal is to dial
a number, when the receiving end picks up, then send some dtmf tone
for a few minutes.
Sounds simple, but I do not know how to tell my controller that the
receiving end has picked up or not. Right now I just let it ring for
10 seconds, and send my dial tone after that. I would like it to be
more 'intelligent' by knowing when the receiver has picked up so I can
send the dial tone (message),
thanks

---
If you're going to use the remote phone for remote control purposes
you could have it shake hands with the controller:

LOCAL REMOTE

DIAL---------------------------->DETECT RING
WAIT FOR HANDSHAKE GO OFF-HOOK
RX HANDSHAKE <------------------ TX DTMF HANDSHAKE TONES
WAIT FOR DTMF DATA
TX DTMF DATA-------------------->RX DTMF DATA

JF

Yes but how is this handle in circuitry. I just realize that I cannot
use the same circuit with audio transformer as I did in DTMF to signal
out. How should the voltage at the line while dialing? and once the
party has pick up the phone ?

Ken

Examine an old internal PC modem to see what general components are used,
the telephone line is energised with about 48V, there are various examples
of telephone circuitry that can be found with google, often a modem presents
the AC terminals of a bridge rectifier (W04 etc) the line current is usually
modulated by a high voltage transistor across the bridge rectifier DC
terminals.

 

[Rod Speed]

Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

Google already gives out posting activity of posters on news
groups, the total number of posts over a certain period of time.

This could be supplemented with other difficult to
compile but public stats and search information.

The number of OP posts as well as the number of OP/total posts ratio, for example.

The average number of responses and number of
different names received by a poster's OP posts.

The number of BE (branch endings) as well ast the BE/total posts.

A search box could be included to pull up all of a poster's OP posts,
and all the posts in a selected group to show the OP posts are on topic.

A search box could be included to pull up all a poster's BE posts to see
if the the branch ended because the poster won a debate or flamed out.

If a poster is flaming out in 95% of his posts then everyone will be
able to quickly see he has nothing to contribute to a tech discussion.

Harder to quantify

It's as easy to quantify OPs and BEs as total activity which

Google does now.

Yes, but that alone is no use.

That's why a serch tool needs to be added:

I'd type in "Rod Speed" in the BE box and get all your posts that ended branchs.

Thats nothing like your original

From the OP of this thread:

"A search box could be included to pull up all a poster's BE posts to see
if the the branch ended because the poster won a debate or flamed out.

Just seeing the BE doesnt allow you to see if its a flame out,

Why wouldn't it?

Because you need to see what a flame is in response to.

Why?

Because many flames are just a response to a previous attempt at a flame or something equally mindless.

you need the context to do that.

You can always look that up.

If you're going to do that, your 'search box' is completely useless.

That's what the search box is for.

Nope, it cant show what the BE is a response to.

 

[Rod Speed]

Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

30-40% savings sounds very high for an average truck journey.

Not gonna happen on the highway, not even with full series which
would only work on flat land anyway.

Precisely my thinking.

How did you guys conclude that ?

OTR trucks are already pretty efficient on the highway. Moreover,
there's always the hope that a lot of long haul freight can go by
rail.

How did you conclude otherwise ? Short of just believing a press
release or whatever.

Here is my reasoning :
Since the truck charges the battery when going down the mountain,
then discharges going up the next, the fuel-saving benefits (w.r.t.
a standard diesel truck) of a well-designed series hybrid truck will
be much more significant in mountain driving than in 'flat land'
driving.

I may reverse myself here. Mountain driving may be the best place for
hybrids.

With powerfull electric motors, a small auxiliary power unit just
strong enough to cruise the rig at 70mph flat, and a battery big
enough (100 kWh or so) to pull the truck up to the tallest mountain,
a series hybrid truck is perfectly suited to handle mountain work.

6,000' climbs aren't all that common on most truck routes so you might
be able to get away with a smaller battery.

So a series hybrid should do even better in the mountains than on
flat land (compared to a standard diesel rig).

Think of it this way:

With grid-battery the battery is 2/3rds the cost.

With diesel-battery the battery is only 2/7ths the cost.

You've just plucked those numbers out of your arse.

We can tell from the smell.

 

[stan]

Rod Speed wrote:

stan <smoore@exis.net> wrote
snip
Never ever could bullshit and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.
snip
You wouldn't know what a real troll was if one bit you on your lard arse.
snip
Never ever could bullshit and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.
snip
Never ever could bullshit and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.
snip
Because you'd wanked yourself completely blind, liar.
snip
Never ever could bullshit and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.
snip
Never ever could bullshit and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.
snip
Never ever could bullshit and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.
snip
Never ever could bullshit and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.
snip

You really seem to be stuck in a rut. Have I completely used up what
little you had to start with?

Am I disturbing you?

Nope. And that aint what was being discussed there anyway, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.

What discussion? You've devolved into mere repetitive, lame drivel.
<snip>

Again I don't understand why you ask,

SURE you dont, liar.

See any attempt at conversation fails.

<snip>

How clever.

How pathetic.

This is getting rather pathetic. You seem to disturbed to even reply
with anything other than repetitive inconsequential nonsense.

 

[Rod Speed]

Some gutless fuckwit desperately cowering behind
stan <smoore@exis.net> desperately attempted to bullshit its way
out of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.

 

[Rob Dekker]

"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message news:bc7a752b-e403-4859-9836-b4a767f4eb7b@r35g2000prm.googlegroups.com...

Think of it this way:

With grid-battery the battery is 2/3rds the cost.

With diesel-battery the battery is only 2/7ths the cost.

As much as you rail against it, I'm afraid I'll have to ask you for
some numbers which will support your position.

I thought you proved mathematically that hybridization ain't cost
effective.

Did you or did you not prove anything?

Bret,

I share your opinion that hybrids can be very cost effective (in reducing fuel cost), but don't think that John's question was
ill-intended.
I myself am a little bit confused as to what you mean with 2/3rd the cost or 2/7th the cost...
2/3rd the cost of what ? 2/7th the cost of what ?
Can you elaborate ?

Rob

 

[Rob Dekker]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:48BE5ED5.691B2D1F@hotmail.com...

Rob Dekker wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Rob Dekker wrote:
"Eeyore"wrote
BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:
. Eeyore wrote

30-40% savings sounds very high for an average truck journey.

Not gonna happen on the highway, not even with full series which
would
only work on flat land anyway.

Precisely my thinking.

How did you guys conclude that ?

How did you conclude otherwise ? Short of just believing a press
release or
whatever.

Here is my reasoning :
Since the truck charges the battery when going down the mountain, then
discharges going up the next, the fuel-saving benefits
(w.r.t. a standard diesel truck) of a well-designed series hybrid truck
will be much more significant in mountain driving than in
'flat land' driving.

With powerfull electric motors, a small auxiliary power unit just strong
enough to cruise the rig at 70mph flat, and a battery big
enough (100 kWh or so) to pull the truck up to the tallest mountain, a
series hybrid truck is perfectly suited to handle mountain
work.

So a series hybrid should do even better in the mountains than on flat
land (compared to a standard diesel rig).

Why did you suddenly bring mountains into the discussion ?

Because the claim above was that series hybrids would not save fuel by that
much and only work on flat land.

Graham

 

[Bob Masta]

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 12:11:47 -0700 (PDT), "jalbers@bsu.edu" <jalbers@bsu.edu>
wrote:

I am trying to locate hidden 110V and 220V wires behind residential
walls. I know that I could just throw some money at it and buy a
commercial locator but what would be the fun in that? Besides, I
played with someone's $100 tone generator/probe combination a few
years ago and it worked great for tracing CAT5 cables at the punch
down pannel but didn't work very well at all for finding CAT5 cable
inside of walls.

I have done some experimenting with a 6" coil of copper wire with
about 200 turns of magnet wire connected to a 741 op amp (non-
inverting configuration, closed loop gain set to 1000, dual 9V supply)
with the output connected to a pair of cheap headphones. I can find
big things like the back side of a circuit breaker pannel, electric
motors, wall warts, or the back side of the power meter. If I get
real close to an outlet box or switch box I can pick up a 60Hz tone.
However, I cannot reliably find any wires inside of the wall even if
they are carying some current.

How can I improve apon this type of circuit or is there a better
homemade way of doing this? Hall effect sensors for example??

Any help would be greatly apprediated. Thanks

If you can get your hands on an old telephone induction pickup, that should be
much more sensitive. This is a coil of wire on an iron core, with a suction cup
to hold it to the phone. They were often sold with an amplifier to make a
"poor-man's" speakerphone. It's pretty amazing the signals you can find in
places where you dont expect them, like plumbing. (In fact, it can make you a
little crazy trying to figure out where the "ground fault" is...)

Or just try winding your coil on an iron core, like a bunch of nails.

Best regards,


Bob Masta

DAQARTA v4.00
Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
www.daqarta.com
Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
FREE Signal Generator
Science with your sound card!

 

[Rod Speed]

Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

Think of it this way:

With grid-battery the battery is 2/3rds the cost.

With diesel-battery the battery is only 2/7ths the cost.

I myself am a little bit confused as to what you mean with 2/3rd the
cost or 2/7th the cost... 2/3rd the cost of what ? 2/7th the cost of what ?
Can you elaborate ?

Grid: 10 cents/ kW-hr

Battery: 20 cents/kW-hr

ICE: 50 cents/kW-hr

Straight from your arse. We can tell from the smell.

EV = grid + battery = 30 cents total. The battery cost is
2/3rd the total. The major cost of power is the battery.

Hybrid = ICE + battery = 70 cents total. The battery cost is 2/7ths the total.

Straight from your arse. We can tell from the smell.

The point was that battery cost is much less a factor in overall power cost in hybrids than EVs.

You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist silly little desperately wanking children ?

On one hand since grid costs are so low grid + battery is cheaper power than ICE + battery.

Mindlessly silly. The problem is that the grid isnt usually available when the vehicle
is being used, so you need a MUCH bigger battery if you want to use the grid.

So if possible, go EV with the cheapest/kW-hr possible battery.

Pity its hardly ever possible and you ALWAYS need a MUCH bigger battery with vehicles.

On the other hand, since fuel is so expensive, the battery cost is becoming negligible in hybrids.

Bare faced lie.

If burning fuel becomes necessary, then a performance
battery that costs up to $1/kW-hr might be the way to go.

No such animal.

In fact, the 2/7ths figure is much too high as most of the time
the energy doesn't pass through battery but goes directly to
the motor in series hybrids or directly to the drive shaft in
parallel hybrids. This is even more true for highway driving.

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

Grid costs will increase too but it may be a decade before it even equals battery cost.

They will never get anything like the battery cost.

The battery in plug in hybrids needs to be selected according to the driving profile.

You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist silly little desperately wanking children ?

For a lot of short trips, finding a cheap/kW-hr battery

No such animal except in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.

would save more money than charging up off peak only.

You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist silly little desperately wanking children ?

For long trips where the ICE is used a lot, a more expensive battery might make sense.

Hybrids never make any economic sense. They are just for silly little wankers that dont have a clue about value.

 

[Rob Dekker]

"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message news:9c02fbbe-7c74-4bc3-8f18-73e4e4a8c8e1@n38g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
.....

With powerfull electric motors, a small auxiliary power unit just strong
enough ?to cruise the rig at 70mph flat, and a battery big> > enough ?(100 kWh or so) to pull the truck up to the tallest
mountain, a
series hybrid truck is perfectly suited to handle mountain> > work.

So a series hybrid should do even better in the mountains than on flat
land (compared to a standard diesel rig).

Why did you suddenly bring mountains into the discussion ?

Because the claim above was that series hybrids would not save fuel by that
much and only work on flat land.

It would be interesting to determine the reasoning behind Eaton's
choice of a parallel hybrid, a complicated drive train where
performance and other characterics fall somewhere between a full
series hybrid and conventional ICE.

Parallel is as good as series around town and better than conventional
on the highway but parallel is worse in the mountains than
conventional or series.

Series is better than parallel on the highway, is a much simpler to
design and much easier to maintain and modify drive train.

The only reasons are,

1. They had some patents on parallel. It's probably impossible to
make any claims on full series hybrids.

2. They are planning on upgrades.

It would indeed be great if automakers would comment on their drivetrain choices.
But I think it is a matter of evolution versus revolution that the 'parallel' hybrid has been chosen as the drivetrain platform for
most hybrids.

When changing the drivetrain with hybrid, there are a lot more issues to solve apart from pure plain technical efficiency numbers.
Think new suppliers, new contracts, re-training maintenace crews and sales people, risk of product safety problems and lawsuits,
product failure recalls etc. etc.

In that sense, a parallel hybrid is already considered more than 'evolutionary' for big automakers.
A series hybrids and EVs (even though it has the best technical future and the simplest design) would probably be a 'revolution'
which involves taking bigger risks.

And automakers are much more conservative than most people think :
For example, the GM board claimed that Toyota was going to "loose their shirt" (actual quote from the board room) by bringing the
Prius (parallel hybrid) to production.
Now see where we are : Prius is quickly becoming one of the best sold vehicles in the US, and GM lost not just their shirt but their
underwear as well.

W.r.t. fuel efficiency, series hybrid would be best, but parallel hybrid is better than no hybrid at all :
This (parallel hybrid popularity) is a good test of large scale use of vehicle batteries, and a test of large scale use of plug-in.
After this, you can see another 'evolutionary' step parallel hybrid where the electric motor and battery get bigger, and the ICE
gets smaller. After that, it's a small step to series hybrid and full EV. So we are moving in the right direction, albeit with baby
steps.

I hope the decline in oil supplies will be more gradual than the predictions, because automakers are slow movers...

Rob

Bret Cahill

 

[Rod Speed]

Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

Think of it this way:
With grid-battery the battery is 2/3rds the cost.
With diesel-battery the battery is only 2/7ths the cost.

. . .

I myself am a little bit confused as to what you mean with 2/3rd
the cost or 2/7th the cost... 2/3rd the cost of what ? 2/7th the
cost of what ?
Can you elaborate ?

Grid: ?10 cents/ kW-hr

Battery: 20 cents/kW-hr

ICE: ?50 cents/kW-hr

EV = grid + battery = 30 cents total. ?The battery cost is 2/3rd the
total. ?The major cost of power is the battery.

Hybrid = ICE + battery = 70 cents total. ?The battery cost is 2/7ths
the total.

The point was that battery cost is much less a factor in overall
power cost in hybrids than EVs.

On one hand since grid costs are so low grid + battery is cheaper
power than ICE + battery.

So if possible, go EV with the cheapest/kW-hr possible battery.

On the other hand, since fuel is so expensive, the battery cost is
becoming negligible in hybrids. ?If burning fuel becomes necessary,
then a performance battery that costs up to $1/kW-hr might be the way
to go.

In fact, the 2/7ths figure is much too high as most of the time the
energy doesn't pass through battery but goes directly to the motor in
series hybrids or directly to the drive shaft in parallel hybrids.
This is even more true for highway driving.

Grid costs will increase too but it may be a decade before it even
equals battery cost.

The battery in plug in hybrids needs to be selected according to the
driving profile. ?For a lot of short trips, finding a cheap/kW-hr
battery would save more money than charging up off peak only.

For long trips where the ICE is used a lot, a more expensive battery
might make sense.

I mentioned before that even storage devices with low efficiency, down to
33%, are becoming cost effective with grid costs "dropping" compared to ICE.

Pity about the cost of the battery.

Similarly, if a battery appeared with a modest gain in efficiency, say, from
90% to 95%, it might be cost effective in a hybrid even if it cost twice as much.

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

 

[Rod Speed]

Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

Think of it this way:

With grid-battery the battery is 2/3rds the cost.

With diesel-battery the battery is only 2/7ths the cost.

As much as you rail against it, I'm afraid I'll have to ask you for
some numbers which will support your position.

I thought you proved mathematically that hybridization ain't cost
effective.

If you proved hybridization isn't cost effective, then why post to a
thread where Eaton, Peterbilt, Walmart and the posters here are
all so delusional they believe hybridization is cost effective?

To rip the rug out from under their stupid claims, stupid.

 

[Rod Speed]

Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

I think farming is 3rd on the list of most dangerous occupations.

The combination of financial and personal risk might lend itself to
comprehensive spread sheets and cost benefit risk analysis calculators.

Nope, esssentially because the risk is impossible to quantify.

It's certain that a lot of farmers have the smarts to know what to do
when to be cost effective. They can do it in their heads but many
others would probably be surprised that they could do a lot better
with more information.

Just following the leader doesn't always work in commodities.

You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist desperately wanking children ?

It'd be interesting to know how many are still guessing still
trying to do it by the seat of their pants when it isn't necessary.

Crop adjusters don't seem to reflect that the insurance
company acturial tables take much of this into consideration.

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

 

[Rod Speed]

Dan Drake <dd@dandrake.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Dan Drake <dd@dandrake.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

John's original, still right at the top, is just plain wrong
on WHEN that collection of silly senile old farts realised
that the earth does in fact revolved around the sun.

Sorry for the confusion.

There is no confusion and there still isnt. You were and still are just plain wrong.

OK, then, instead of your bluster, let's see your evidence.

YOU made the original stupid claim.

YOU get to provide the evidence.

THATS how it works.

What I was referring to was the Roman Catholic Church's
official admission that Geocentrism was wrong

Yes, that was always clear.

and, AIUI, that acknowledgement only occurred a few years ago.

And that is where you were always just plain
wrong. It happened a LONG time before that.

OK, then, instead of your bluster, let's see your evidence.

YOU made the original stupid claim.

YOU get to provide the evidence.

THATS how it works.

Like I said, what actually happened only a few years ago, was that
they did officially admit that Galileo had been very badly treated.

OK, then, instead of your bluster, let's see your evidence.

YOU made the original stupid claim.

YOU get to provide the evidence.

THATS how it works.

Small comfort for Galileo, who knew he was right, beyond a shadow of doubt,

And he wasnt alone in recognising that at that time. The evidence was very clear.

That's not the point.

Corse it is.

but was forced to perjure himself

He didnt even perjure himself.

In order to save his life, he was forced to lie about his
beliefs before a legislating body, which is perjury.

Wrong, as always.

Do you actually mean anything by that statement? If so, could you tell us what it is?

Pathetic.

I mean, I assume you know what the word "recant" means.

Irrelevant to what the word perjury means.

Obviously you know that Galileo recanted, formally, under oath, before witnesses,
with a transcript being taken, the authenticity of which has never been questioned

Different matter entirely to whether that qualifys as perjury.

-- unless you have now decided to question whether he really said it

Nope.

(in which case it would be nice to know on what grounds
you question it, in opposition to everyone else in the world
and every historian of science that ever considered it).

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

BTW I am not arguing that the Church didn't recognize the Earth's motion till the 1990s.

That fool Fields is clearly doing just that.

After all, when they allowed (in fact, _ordered_) the publication of Galileo's work undiluted in 1822,

They didnt get to ORDER a damned thing.

it was not because the Inquisition had been converted into disciples
of John Locke with a firm belief in Voltaire's famous principle which
he never actually said, about defending to the death your right to be
wrong. It was because they knew they looked too damn stupid by then

As I said, a separate matter entirely to when even those fools
had realised that the earth did in fact revolve around the sun.

-- just as Galileo had warned their predecessors, though
they were not about to say that out loud. And in only 170
years more, the Church got around to saying it out loud.

You cant even manage to grasp just what 'it' is actually being discussed.

This, of course, is a small point in itself; it's just that your
uncompromising and unfounded statements tend to, you know,
make it look as if you don't really know what you're talking about.

You in spades when you cant even manage to work out just what is being discussed.

The senile old farts at Fordham U (your characterization, not mine;

I never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that.

I find a lot of highly respecatble scholarship in Romish
sources) have proved a convenient reference:

Pity its doesnt even comment on what is actually being discussed.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1630galileo.html

"...But since I, after having been admonished by this Holy Office
entirely to abandon the false opinion that the Sun was the centre
of the universe and immoveable, and that the Earth was not the
centre of the same and that it moved,... I did write and cause to
be printed a book in which I treat of the said already condemned
doctrine... : I have been judged vehemently suspected of heresy,
that is, of having held and believed that the Sun is the centre of
the universe and immoveable, and that the Earth is not the
centre of the same, and that it does move.

"Nevertheless, wishing to remove from the minds of your
Eminences and all faithful Christians this vehement suspicion
reasonably conceived against me, I abjure with sincere heart and
unfeigned faith, I curse and detest the said errors and heresies...

"I Galileo Galilei aforesaid have abjured, sworn, and promised, and
hold myself bound as above; and in token of the truth, with my own
hand have subscribed the present schedule of my abjuration, and have
recited it word by word. In Rome, at the Convent della Minerva, this
22nd day of June, 1633.

"I, GALILEO GALILEI, have abjured as above, with my own hand."

What part of "recanted" or "abjured" or "under oath" do you not understand?

What part of PERJURY do you not understand

Well, here's what I understand: Lying under oath.

It isnt just ANY lying under oath.

Let's see: under oath. If you don't believe that part, maybe you'd condescend
to explain how all the evidence is false, rather than simply shouting.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

Let's see: Lying. So, he really did curse and detest the Copernican
ideas, considering them to be errors and heresies?

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

Or else there is indeed some part of *your* concept of PERJURY that I fail to understand.

It isnt MY concept of perjury thats being discussed. Try a dictionary sometime.

 

[Rod Speed]

Some terminal fuckwit claiming to be
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote just the
pathetic excuse for a puerile troll thats all it can ever manage.