Chip with simple program for Toy

[John Fields]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 04:07:48 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

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

I doubt that gentle (low temperature) frying does much harm to any food.

The problem aint what it does to the food, the
problem is what it does to the humans who eat it.

Well, yeah, but it's the acrylamides that are developed in the food
when it's fried (or roasted or grilled) for too long that's the problem,

Trivially fixed by not doing it for too long.

---
Duh.
---

so it _is_ what it does to the food that's the problem.

Nope, not when you get a clue about how long you do it for.

---
Duh.

I already made that point.
---

And then, it's only a problem if the fried food is high in carbohydrates.

Wrong again. The real problem is whats used to fry it in.

---
Short attention span?

That's what I originally stated and what you chose to disagree with.

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 04:10:57 +1000, "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 Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

I dare say we could debate factors of this at length
and it would be quite interesting but I think there are
other more important fish to fry.

Fried fish is bad for you.

Depends on what you fry it in.

Nope, frying is bad for you.

Got some data?

Yep, http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=frying+grilling+health

From the same source:

"According to a spokesperson from the European Union, acrylamide content
is much higher in foods that have been discolored or burned by cooking.

So dont discolor or burn the food, stupid.

---
No shit?

My, you _do_ have a remarkable grasp of the obvious.
---

"General advice, resulting from this project, is to avoid overcooking when
baking, frying or toasting carbohydrate-rich foods," the spokesperson said.

Funny that.

"French fries and roast potatoes should be cooked
to a golden yellow rather than golden brown color.""

See, not a shred of rocket science required whatever.

---
Well, you do have to know the difference between golden yellow and
golden brown, plus it took a little "rocket science" to establish the
link between acrylamide and cancer, you know.

Ovarian cancer, BTW, so I really don't have to worry about it.

YMMV.
---

So, then, as long as you fry them that way and use vegetable oil you should be OK

Thats just as far as the acrylamide content is concerned.

You're still stuck with the fat that it collects when you fry them and thats bad for you.

---
It doesn't have to be, and you _need_ fat.

The trick is in knowing what and how much you're putting into your
body.

Here:

http://www.pennhealth.com/health_info/nutrition/fat.html

Salud!

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 11:13:16 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

I know that diesels (especially lately) are probably the most efficient ICEs around.
But do you see any efficiency numbers for the new diesels ? Can't find much on detroitdiesel.com.

I don't know the exact details for sure but very large marine diesels are now hitting 50%.

They were always efficient. Those incremental increases in efficiency
are like jumping off the Titantic with dry clothes instead of wet.
The effort to buy a tiny bit of time will have a statistically zero
impact on odds of the survival for most people.

That's
impressive, especially when you consider what you might do with the waste 'co-gen' capacity.

I believe the target for road diesels in the long term is in  the region of 40% or maybe a tad better.

How much time will going from 30% efficiency to 40% buy?

One year?

How long will it take to develop?

This reminds me of GM working on an engine with 15% better fuel
economy.

It'll take seven years to develop.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, just that it isn't a solution.

This is no time or place for tweakers.

---
It's a fine time _and_ place for tweakers.

It's not the right time for know-nothing idiots who think they have
all the answers but can't substantiate any of their beliefs and want
to throw the baby out with the bath water.


JF

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 11:17:39 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

That could drop with cheap PV.

So such thing yet exists.

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

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.

Have you EVER heard of something called INSOLATION ?

How else are they going to rate their plant's capacity?

Notice the dodge?

---
Yeah, instead of responding to the question with an answer, you
skirted it with: "Notice the dodge?"

What could be more obvious?
---

Whoooooosssshhhhhhh !

LOL!

Pathetic.

Huge

No way.

---
Fucking idiot.

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 11:20:08 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

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

THEY claim nothing of the sort.

www.nanosolar.com

An investigative reporter type like you needs to do an expose of this
scam!

---
ISTM that your credibility's down about 90%, so you're doing a pretty
god job of exposing yerself, dontcha know...

You'll get a Putlitzer!!!

---
"Putlitzer" ???

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 05:03:03 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 04:07:48 +1000, "Rod Speed"
rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

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

I doubt that gentle (low temperature) frying does much harm to
any food.

The problem aint what it does to the food, the
problem is what it does to the humans who eat it.

Well, yeah, but it's the acrylamides that are developed in the food
when it's fried (or roasted or grilled) for too long that's the
problem,

Trivially fixed by not doing it for too long.

---
Duh.
---

so it _is_ what it does to the food that's the problem.

Nope, not when you get a clue about how long you do it for.

---
Duh.

I already made that point.
---

And then, it's only a problem if the fried food is high in
carbohydrates.

Wrong again. The real problem is whats used to fry it in.

---
Short attention span?

That's what I originally stated and what you chose to disagree with.

I meant that whatever its fried in is bad for you, stupid.

---
LOL, you can't even make your meaning clear and _I'm_ stupid?

And, anyway, you're wrong about fried foods.

Your body needs fat so, as I stated in another post, the trick is to
use oil to fry with that's good for you and not to use too much of it.

Besides, fried foods are yummy.

JF

 

[Bret Cahill]

Nope,

Yup

Hugely pathetic

No way.

Nuke

 

[Bret Cahill]

And when they aint, it cant.

Hugely pathetic

Not gonna happen

No way

Nuke

 

[Bret Cahill]

No thanks,

Cite?

Show your work.

Pathetic.

Nope.

Ain't gonna happen.

 

[Bret Cahill]

Maybe you are a loser in your own mind.

You are simply

Show your calculations

 

[disgoftunwells]

On 27 Jul, 06:12, "Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote:

"Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote in message

news:g6gsn8$b9i$1@news.parasun.com...





"John Fields" <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:e1nn845fesb3dniesl3chte2let1455k64@4ax.com...
...
If they cycle thousands of times then they are already competitive
with liquid hydrocarbon fuel in a lot of applications.

---
Please elaborate on that quantitatively and show your work.

Let me try something :

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

No, we always do that. Not 10 or 100, just 1,000.

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

I've read that basic Li-ion batteries are available for $500/Kwhr.

Zebra batteries are meant to be cheaper than that.

However, from Wikipedia:
"The ZEBRA battery has an attractive specific energy and power (90 Wh/
kg and 150 W/kg). The liquid electrolyte freezes at 157 °C, and the
normal operating temperature range is 270-350 °C. The â-alumina solid
electrolyte that has been developed for this system is very stable,
both to sodium metal and the sodium chloroaluminate. Lifetimes of over
1500 cycles and five years have been demonstrated with full-sized
batteries, and over 3000 cycles and eight years with 10- and 20-cell
modules. Vehicles powered by ZEBRA batteries have covered more than 2
million km. Modec Electric Van uses ZEBRA batteries for the 2007
model."

3,000 charges for a $20,000 battery would be 7c plus amortisation
costs.

Even if everything goes wrong, battery hardly gets used, and the battery
fails one day after the warrenty expires, it's still negligent cost.

That means that the main cost (of 'fuel') is electricity.
Assume electricity costs $0.10/kWh.
Cycle efficiency (of this ZEBRA bus) is between 78% and 85% (see report).
That means a cost (of operating this bus) to about $0.13/kWh.

So make that $0.33/kWh. (13cts for electricity + 20cts for capital cost).

You should be able to get night time electricity more cheaply.

...
Diesel has a heating value average of 38.6 MJ/liter, or 146MJ/gallon. That
is 40.7 kWh.
Efficiency of diesel engines, mmm, varies widely, but probably in between
30% and 40% (anyone has any better numbers?) in real life use in a large
vehicle.
That would mean that a diesel engine would release between 12 kWh and 16
kWh
of work from one gallon of diesel.

At close to $5/gallon (current diesel retail price in California), this is
$0.30-$0.40 per kWh.

...

Net savings : $0.17/kWh. Or in different words : fuel cost saving is
certainly more than 56%.

So with $0.33/kWh for battery operation, the (fuel) costs are pretty equal
(w.r.t. diesel).





And this is not even considering regenerative braking (typically another
20%
of fuel cost saved).

That's still the case, so battery operation should still be cost effective.
But it's no longer a no-brainer.

My conclusion for now :
Cost of batteries has to come down a factor of 2 to be truely competitive
(no-brainer sort of thing) w.r.t. diesel.

Or the life has to treble, which is already achievable.

The problem with Zebra is that it needs to be kept at 250C or so. So
it needs to be very well insulated. That's less of a problem for a
100KW (1 ton) battery than a 13KW car battery.

 

[Bret Cahill]

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

It might also go down. Suggest you inspect history.

Trying to extrapolate post peak from pre peak in just plain insane.

Or are you denying peak oil?

Also, newer tech diesel engines are getting ever more efficicent.

Trying to chase spiraling energy costs with incremental increases in
heat engine efficieny will buy about 3 weeks time.

It's a noble effort that won't change much.

It reminds me of the old Car Talk answer to a question about an energy
saving device on an SUV:

"You know what that thing does? That causes your SUV to go from
getting 8.6 miles per gallon to getting eight point six FIVE miles per
gallon. Ha ha ha ha ha."

Dick Cheney may eventually get a memorial on the Mall for "securing"
$150 trillion worth of Iraqi crude.


Bret Cahill

 

[disgoftunwells]

On 28 Jul, 00:23, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:

BretCah...@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.

Here you go: http://www.nanosolar.com/blog3/

It's actually 100 feet per minute, or about 1mph.(Not even 2 orders of
magnitude error)

On the other hand, this isn't a plant doing 1GW (capacity) per year.
It's a machine.

They expect $1 / watt.

But if you've got the batteries, better put the PV cells on a roof top
than on a bus top.

 

[Bret Cahill]

I know that diesels (especially lately) are probably the most efficient ICEs around.
But do you see any efficiency numbers for the new diesels ? Can't find much on detroitdiesel.com.

I don't know the exact details for sure but very large marine diesels are now hitting 50%.

They were always efficient. Those incremental increases in efficiency
are like jumping off the Titantic with dry clothes instead of wet.
The effort to buy a tiny bit of time will have a statistically zero
impact on odds of the survival for most people.

That's
impressive, especially when you consider what you might do with the waste 'co-gen' capacity.

I believe the target for road diesels in the long term is in  the region of 40% or maybe a tad better.

How much time will going from 30% efficiency to 40% buy?

One year?

How long will it take to develop?

This reminds me of GM working on an engine with 15% better fuel
economy.

It'll take seven years to develop.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, just that it isn't a solution.

This is no time or place for tweakers.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

That could drop with cheap PV.

So such thing yet exists.

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

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.

Have you EVER heard of something called INSOLATION ?

How else are they going to rate their plant's capacity?

Notice the dodge?

Whoooooosssshhhhhhh !

LOL!

Pathetic.

Huge

No way.

 

[Bret Cahill]

LOL!

Pathetic.

No way.

Show your calculations.

 

[Bret Cahill]

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

THEY claim nothing of the sort.

www.nanosolar.com

An investigative reporter type like you needs to do an expose of this
scam!

You'll get a Putlitzer!!!

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

"Rod Speed" wrote:

I doubt that gentle (low temperature) frying does much harm to any food.

The problem aint what it does to the food, the problem is what it does to the humans who eat it.

---
Well, yeah, but it's the acrylamides that are developed in the food
when it's fried (or roasted or grilled) for too long that's the
problem, so it _is_ what it does to the food that's the problem.

Well, decent fish does not need to be fried long at all.

Great food, fish. I ought to eat more of it but it's become quite expensive as certain fisheries have
been exhausted. I had some Chinese style once in Hong Kong. It was superb. Obviously being coastal,
fish is a major food there. Didn't like abalone though.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Rod Speed wrote:

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

I doubt that gentle (low temperature) frying does much harm to any food.

The problem aint what it does to the food, the
problem is what it does to the humans who eat it.

Well, yeah, but it's the acrylamides that are developed in the food
when it's fried (or roasted or grilled) for too long that's the problem,

Trivially fixed by not doing it for too long.

I totally agree.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Rod Speed wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote

And then, it's only a problem if the fried food is high in carbohydrates.

Wrong again. The real problem is whats used to fry it in.

Wasnt that what I was saying myself a few posts back ?

Graham