Chip with simple program for Toy

[Phil Allison]

"Michael Black"

Kasterborus wrote:
I need to find a way to couple the AC mains signal to my low voltage
scope input. I'm adjusting a rotary spark gap and need to get the
"bangs" on the up and downswing of the AC cycle.

Is there something I can build with a transformer / optoisolator - or
is it easier than that?

Dave
They call it a 100:1 or 1000:1 scope probe for HV work.

HV Probes are for actual High Voltage.

** Which is just what the AC supply voltage is.

His problem isn't high voltage, but trying to connect the scope
input across the AC line.

** The OP's problem IS that the AC line voltage is beyond the range of his
scope.

The little problem of grounding one
side of the line with the ground lead is one issue here.

** What need is there for that ?

The OP can use a 100:1 probe and attach the tip to the hot (or active) side
of the supply - presuming the scope ground is already linked to safety
ground.

He needs isolation.

** Nonsense.



...... Phil

 

[Rod Speed]

Paul E. Schoen <pstech@smart.net> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
m II <C@in.the.hat> wrote
Paul E. Schoen wrote

According to the data given, 1 square meter of water pumped
up to a height of 30 meters weighs 1000 kg, and has a potential
energy of 30 kJoules. This is enough energy to power a 30 watt
lamp for (correction) about a half hour.

The question becomes: "How much power did it take to pump
it up there in the first place?" If we can only get back 25
percent of what we had originally, it wouldn't be worth it.

Depends on where the energy comes from. It can be with nukes particularly.

And solar in spades.

I'm still not a big fan of nukes,

More fool you. They make a hell of a lot of sense in the first world.

but I'm not totally opposed. Maybe steam can be created from passive solar, and it can power a combination of
electrical generator and pump to store any excess energy during the day, which can then be recouped at night or during
periods of low insolation.

Nukes make a hell of a lot more sense.

And can produce hydrogen when the cost of crude oil is high enough for long enough to make that economic.

All components of such a system are inexpensive,

Like hell they are.

safe,

Like hell the production of steam is.

and proven.

Nukes are proven too. The French generate 80% of their
electricity that way and havent had a serious accident.

 

[Phil Allison]

"John Larkin"

An AC wall-wart transformer will work, and is safe. It will introduce
just a little phase shift.

** With no load applied, an AC output "wall-wart" tranny shows no phase
error on the secondary at or near the AC voltage peaks.

However, the magnetising current value peaks around each zero crossing
causing the effective applied primary voltage to drop below the incoming AC
supply voltage at those times and hence causes the secondary voltage to
cross zero a little early - typically by about 10 degrees.

A small toroidal AC supply transformer would give the most accurate result,
cos of the very low Imag value these have.



.... Phil

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Rod Speed wrote:

Kevin Aylward <kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Kevin Aylward <kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote

What other way can a "new idea" be generated, if not by a random
process?

By a non random process, stupid. Refining existing ideas as changes
in technology make new approaches economically feasible.

Then, its not a new idea,

No ideas ever are in that sense.

Indeed there are.

Like the miniaturisation of computers due to integrated circuits and
single chip computers made the automation of many things feasible
and allows a level of computer control that just wasnt practical to
be so practical that it appears in stuff as simple as a radio or
microwave etc.

And that allows a level of sophisticated control that was never
economic with mechanical controls.

None of this constitutes a new idea,

There are no new ideas in that sense.

hence you haven't shown that new ideas are not due to a random
process.

There are no new ideas in the sense you are using the term.

Of course there are. Lots of them.

Name even just one. You cant.

The speed of light is an invariant. It is an independent axiom of physics
that is not derivable from any other law of physics.

The shrodinger equation of quantum mechanics. It is an independent axiom of
physics that is not derivable from any other law of physics.

The Einstien Field equations. For eaxmple,
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html, setting the Stress-Energy or
Energy-Momentum Tensor equal to the contracted Riemann tensor, was
guesswork.It is an independent axiom of physics that is not derivable from
any other law of physics.

Of course, there are some aspects of these physic laws that are based and
developed on prior ideas, but each one of the above has a *unique*
component, that is quite impossible to derive from existing knowledge. It is
educated guess work. That is, *Selection* (non random) of a randomly
generated component, from which, these non-random selected, random
variations are copied on to generate more derivable information, from which,
new ideas may be randomly generated from etc. Its a Darwinian Algorithm.

You are simply giving more examples where a supposed "new" idea, is
in fact, just something derived from prior art.

They ALL are.

As I noted, if it is derivable from something else, then it is not
intrinsically new.

Hardly any invention ever is. They're mostly refinements of prior
art.

Exactly my point.

Nope, you havent established that there is anything like a new idea
in the sense you are using the term.

I have now.

I said either something is derivable or not derivable.

Nothing is not derivable.

Oh dear.

it must be random.

Wrong again. Even Einsteins general relativity aint random.

See above.

There is no process, other than a random process that can generate
a non predictable outcome.

Mindlessly silly. Predictability is an entirely separate matter to
a new idea.

Oh dear... I knew that was coming.

SURE you did.

Yes. I even wrote and deleted that anticipated answer before posting. I
don't have the time for this.

Of course, its trivial that not being able to predict something does
not make it random. It may well be just to complex.

So your original was just plain silly.

However, if it is random, it is non predictable, by definition.

Yes, but thats irrelevant to the silly claim that all new ideas are
random.

Unfortunately, you just haven't thought about the problem, or understood
exactly what is being claimed.

A *truly* "new idea" is formed from two components. On component is all that
can be logically derived from existing knowledge,.the second is a component
that can not be logically derived from existing knowledge. It the second
part that constitues a new idea.

No one claiming that everything about a supposed "new idea" is random, only
that a true "new idea" must, have something that is not derivable, otherwise
it is not truly new.

We are thus led to the logical conclusion, that only a randam event
satifies the contraint that something new is not derivable from
existing knowledge.

There is no such thing with ideas.

You cant list even a single one. Even Einstein's general relativity
doesnt qualify.

See above.

I got 1,740,000 hits in google for "genetic algorithm"

You'll get even more with 'aliens that bite cows bums'

Well, people actually GA, to solve real problems. Denial, won't change this
fact.

Doesnt mean that there is any such animal.

You might as well start at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm to get the basics.

And I shall leave with a summary of your debating arguments.

Just a complete wank of a name.

that stupid claim that YOU made
your mindless silly shit.

you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

Kevin Aylward

www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice

 

[Rob Dekker]

"Bill Reif" <billreif@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:60Xmk.20892$N87.4026@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...

"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:328e6158-7cfe-4418-82d4-8535ee091b9c@y19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Some dreamer once wanted to use "super" capacitors to power a road EV
but the energy density is still too low. By one calculation a 100 ton
cap would be necessary to store the energy in a 15 gallon (100 lb) gas
tank.

I understand there's promising research on using capacitors constructed
using nanotubes.

True, nanowires can improve the exposed 'area' that is so crucial in
capacitors.
But there is a limit to what you can obtain with enlarging the 'area' of
capacitors' contacts :
The dielectric determines that limit : The MAXIMUM energy per (cubic meter)
volume of capacitors is simply :

U = epsilon * Ebreak ^ 2

where epsilon is the permittivity of the material used as insulator in the
capacitor, and Ebreak is the maximum electric field (volt per meter) of the
same material (before is 'breaks down (shorts out)' under electric stress).
One of the best capacitor insulators is Aluminum Oxide (Al2O3), with epsilon
of about 10*(epsilon0)=10*8.8E-12 = 8.8E-11 and a breakdown electric field
of about 1E9 V/m (amazing but true : 1000 V/um) if deposited correctly.

That brings the theoretical maximum storage capacity of Al2O3 capacitors to
about 88 MJ/m^3 or 88kJ/liter or about 24Wh/liter or about 6Wh/kg.
Incidentally, that is about the maximum storage capacity of the best
ultracapacitors of Maxwell Technologies (leading ultracap manufacturer).
This compares to 30Wh/kg for lead-acid batteries, and 180Wh/kg for
Li-polymer batteries.

There is a company called EEstor that claims to have a capacitor that stores
1MJ/kg (277Wh/kg), using a ceramic (Barium titanate) dielectric with an
epsilon of 38,000 or so. However, there are strong indications that EEstor
is talking out of their a..s, since they seemed to have completely ignored
an effect called dielectric saturation in barium titanate that has long been
verified and known to be a limiting factor in such high-permittivity
dielectrics. Also they claim a much higher breakdown voltage than what was
previously found in barium titanate. When that is taken into consideration
for their dielectric, then the storage capacity goes down to the level of
Al2O3, around 5Wh/kg.
We'll see if EEstor can actually get even close to their claimed 277Wh/kg.
So far, they are a no-show.

Long story short : Unless there is a real breakthrough, Ultracaps have a way
to go before they will replace batteries.

For electric farm tractors energy density is much less an issue than
the lifetime cost of the energy storage device. With enough trolly
wiring caps would work better than batteries.

Where would flywheels fall in this calculation? They can store a fair
amount of energy, and can be resupplied quite quickly.

I agree.
Especially for short-term storage (topic of this thread) flywheels might
actually be a pretty darn good competitor of ultracaps.
A flywheel with a motor-generator could actually get close to 50 Wh/kg,
which is comparable with lead-acid batteries, but has the advantage of huge
power density. Here is an example (which gets 27Wh/kg) :
http://www.magma.ca/~fesi/

In fact, I think that for regenerative braking (or battery peak unloaders in
electric vehicles), ultracapacitors and small flywheel systems (with a
motor-generator) will be competing with each other.
Flywheels are not bad at all, and as safe (or unsafe) as ultracapacitors.

Bill

 

[Rod Speed]

Kevin Aylward <kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote

Rod Speed wrote
Kevin Aylward <kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Kevin Aylward <kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote

What other way can a "new idea" be generated, if not by a random process?

By a non random process, stupid. Refining existing ideas as changes
in technology make new approaches economically feasible.

Then, its not a new idea,

No ideas ever are in that sense.

Indeed there are.

Like the miniaturisation of computers due to integrated circuits
and single chip computers made the automation of many things
feasible and allows a level of computer control that just wasnt
practical to be so practical that it appears in stuff as simple as
a radio or microwave etc.

And that allows a level of sophisticated control that was never economic with mechanical controls.

None of this constitutes a new idea,

There are no new ideas in that sense.

hence you haven't shown that new ideas are not due to a random process.

There are no new ideas in the sense you are using the term.

Of course there are. Lots of them.

Name even just one. You cant.

The speed of light is an invariant.

OK, but that clearly didnt arise thru any random process.

It is an independent axiom of physics that is not derivable from any other law of physics.

Yes, but clearly didnt arise thru any random process.

The shrodinger equation of quantum mechanics. It is an independent
axiom of physics that is not derivable from any other law of physics.

OK, but that clearly didnt arise thru any random process.

The Einstien Field equations. For eaxmple,
http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html, setting the
Stress-Energy or Energy-Momentum Tensor equal to the contracted
Riemann tensor, was guesswork.It is an independent axiom of physics
that is not derivable from any other law of physics.

OK, but that clearly didnt arise thru any random process.

Of course, there are some aspects of these physic laws that are based and developed on prior ideas, but each one of
the above has a *unique* component,

So does any significant new idea.

that is quite impossible to derive from existing knowledge.

It is educated guess work.

Nope, no guess involved. They did in fact explain what was unexplainable without them.

That is, *Selection* (non random) of a randomly generated component,

Nope, nothing like that at all on the components.

from which, these non-random selected, random variations are copied on to generate more derivable information,

Nope, no random variations involved at all. Completely non random in fact.

from which, new ideas may be randomly generated from etc.

Nope, no randomness present at all.

Its a Darwinian Algorithm.

Nope, nothing like it.

You are simply giving more examples where a supposed "new" idea, is in fact, just something derived from prior art.

They ALL are.

As I noted, if it is derivable from something else, then it is not intrinsically new.

Hardly any invention ever is. They're mostly refinements of prior art.

Exactly my point.

Nope, you havent established that there is anything like a new idea in the sense you are using the term.

I have now.

Yes, but you havent established that any of those come from random events.

Nothing like it in fact when they explain what is otherwise unexplainable without them.

I said either something is derivable or not derivable.

Nothing is not derivable.

Oh dear.

Oh cheap.

it must be random.

Wrong again. Even Einsteins general relativity aint random.

See above.

Completely useless, as always with your claims.

There is no process, other than a random process that can generate a non predictable outcome.

Mindlessly silly. Predictability is an entirely separate matter to a new idea.

Oh dear... I knew that was coming.

SURE you did.

Yes.

Nope.

I even wrote and deleted that anticipated answer before posting.

Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

I don't have the time for this.

Your problem.

Of course, its trivial that not being able to predict something does
not make it random. It may well be just to complex.

So your original was just plain silly.

However, if it is random, it is non predictable, by definition.

Yes, but thats irrelevant to the silly claim that all new ideas are random.

Unfortunately, you just haven't thought about the problem, or understood exactly what is being claimed.

Wrong, as always.

A *truly* "new idea" is formed from two components. On component is all that can be logically derived from existing
knowledge,.

What I said.

the second is a component that can not be logically derived from existing knowledge.

Wrong, as always. It comes from the fact that the current knowledge cant explain the observations.

It the second part that constitues a new idea.

But you havent established that there is any RANDOM component to that.

No one claiming that everything about a supposed "new idea" is random,

You havent established that ANYTHING about a new idea is random.

only that a true "new idea" must, have something that is not derivable, otherwise it is not truly new.

The original wasnt even about JUST 'truly new' ideas.

We are thus led to the logical conclusion, that only a randam event satifies the contraint that something new is not
derivable from existing knowledge.

There is no such thing with ideas.

You cant list even a single one. Even Einstein's general relativity doesnt qualify.

See above.

See above.

I got 1,740,000 hits in google for "genetic algorithm"

You'll get even more with 'aliens that bite cows bums'

Well, people actually GA, to solve real problems.

Irrelevant to what was being discussed, whether NEW IDEAS always involved random components.

Of course they dont.

Denial, won't change this fact.

You in spades.

Doesnt mean that there is any such animal.

You might as well start at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm to get the basics.

And I shall leave with a summary of your debating arguments.

Just more of your pathetic excuse for bullshit and lies.

 

[Kris Krieger]

"Bob Eld" <nsmontassoc@yahoo.com> wrote in
newswKmk.17292$uE5.13408@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com:

[snip]

They are now experimenting with large sailing kites to help pull
container ships across the ocean to reduce the fuel consumed. This
method may help keep water transportation preeminent and competative.

Is that serious, or a joke? If it's serious, do you have any links handy?

TIA!

 

[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

You dont get to 'allow' or disallow a damned thing. Ever.

Actually I do.

Nope.

Yes, I do if I can present a stronger case that logic applies here.

Nope. The most you ever do is CLAIM that you have a stronger case.

So do you.

Nope. The most I ever do is rub your nose in the fact that I have a stronger case.

How is your case stronger?

I keep rubbing your nose in the fact that you ripped away the context and
are mindlessly rabbiting on about nothing like what was being discussed.

We were talking about an analogy

Wrong. You're the only one wanking about analogys.

between some generation of ideas and selection amongst a pluralistic field of possibilities,

Wrong, as always.

Or comparing some activities of the brain with evolutionary processes.

Wrong, as always.

Or are you saying that you have a stronger case, by logical
reasoning, that you are not using logic whenever you argue.

Nope.

If so I think that violates common sense;

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

<reams of your desperate irrelevant wanking flushed where it belongs>

Whoops, nothing left.

 

[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

You dont get to 'allow' or disallow a damned thing. Ever.

Actually I do.

Nope.

Yes, I do if I can present a stronger case that logic applies here.

Nope. The most you ever do is CLAIM that you have a stronger case.

So do you.

Nope. The most I ever do is rub your nose in the fact that I have a stronger case.

How is your case stronger?

I keep rubbing your nose in the fact that you ripped away the context and
are mindlessly rabbiting on about nothing like what was being discussed.

Oh ya, back for a minute, anyway you claimed that;

New ideas are nothing like random variations.
Darwinian random variation is nothing like how the brain works.

Ripped from its context, yet again.

This is a bold set of statements

In response to the context you ripped away.

that are clear based upon under determined empiricism.

More of your desperate mindless wanking.

To put it in layman's terms, you would have a hard time accounting for all origins of ideas.

Dont need to given the context you ripped away, wanker.

We were talking about an analogy

Wrong. You're the only one wanking about analogys.

Actually when I stepped in your were already debating the analogy.

Wrong, as always. That wasnt an analogy, wanker.

between some generation of ideas and selection amongst a pluralistic field of possibilities,

Wrong, as always.

What is wrong?

That bit it followed, wanker.

Rather vague on your part.

Nope, that is a comment on a specific bit of your mindless wanking.

Or comparing some activities of the brain with evolutionary processes.

Wrong, as always.

<reams of your desperate irrelevant wanking flushed where it belongs>

Or are you saying that you have a stronger case, by logical
reasoning, that you are not using logic whenever you argue.

Nope.

Oh then you concede that whenever you use language to argue that you necessarily use logic?

Nope.

If so I think that violates common sense;

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

<reams of your desperate irrelevant wanking flushed where it belongs>

Whoops, nothing left.

 

[Rod Speed]

Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote

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

How is your case stronger?

I keep rubbing your nose in the fact that you ripped away the context and
are mindlessly rabbiting on about nothing like what was being discussed.

Oh ya, back for a minute, anyway you claimed that;

Here is the problem, plain and simple;

Wrong, as always.

New ideas are nothing like random variations.
Darwinian random variation is nothing like how the brain works.

Good luck trying to argue, what might be a good point, with such terrible logic.

You wouldnt know what real logic was if it bit you on your lard arse, wanker.

Ripped from its context, yet again.

<reams of your desperate irrelevant wanking flushed where it belongs>

This is a bold set of statements

In response to the context you ripped away.

<reams of your desperate irrelevant wanking flushed where it belongs>

We were talking about an analogy

Wrong. You're the only one wanking about analogys.

Actually when I stepped in your were already debating the analogy.

Wrong, as always. That wasnt an analogy, wanker.

<reams of your desperate irrelevant wanking flushed where it belongs>

between some generation of ideas and selection amongst a pluralistic field of possibilities,

Wrong, as always.

What is wrong?

That bit it followed, wanker.

<reams of your desperate irrelevant wanking flushed where it belongs>

Rather vague on your part.

Nope, that is a comment on a specific bit of your mindless wanking.

<reams of your desperate irrelevant wanking flushed where it belongs>

Or comparing some activities of the brain with evolutionary processes.

Wrong, as always.

<reams of your desperate irrelevant wanking flushed where it belongs>

Or are you saying that you have a stronger case, by logical
reasoning, that you are not using logic whenever you argue.

Nope.

Oh then you concede that whenever you use language to argue that you necessarily use logic?

Nope.

<reams of your desperate irrelevant wanking flushed where it belongs>

If so I think that violates common sense;
Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

<reams of your desperate irrelevant wanking flushed where it belongs>

Whoops, nothing left.

 

[John G]

<vinta.daga@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:27ef9f9b-03a4-49f1-8065-81e1f187f2d2@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com...

i need to know semiconductors.

simple.
by definition "Half conductors"

John G.

 

[Rod Speed]

Tim Jackson <tim@tim-jackson.co.uk> wrote:

Bret Cahill wrote:
?> Come back Cutty Sark, all is forgiven.

A mast on a conventional sailing vessel tacking sideways or up wind
applies a lengthwise torque to the vessel creating a list that spills
the wind out of the sails.

The new cup race boats have tilting keels that counter the bending
moment and keep the mast vertical and go 50 knots, about as fast a
nuke airfraft carrier.

The 'traditional' modern solution to that is multiple hulls, although
that has the penalty of what might be politely called a second stable
orientation. I didn't mean that we couldn't improve on the
performance of the tea clipper, I meant that maybe we need to revisit
the use of commercial sailing ships when oil gets unaffordable. Imagine what the East India Company could have done
with carbon fibre
masts, automated sail handling and modern aerodynamic theory. And
radar.
Mind you a kite has several alternative stable configurations too -
stalled, aback, in the water, and knotted. It's all very well
designing for clear weather and flat seas, unfortunately commerce
doesn't wait for good weather, or confine itself to the trade wind
zones. It would be nice to imagine a kite with a control system
that could fly it through a hurricane without breaking anything

Nuke power makes a hell of a lot more sense.

 

[Rod Speed]

Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

Come back Cutty Sark, all is forgiven.

A mast on a conventional sailing vessel tacking sideways or up wind
applies a lengthwise torque to the vessel creating a list that
spills the wind out of the sails.

The new cup race boats have tilting keels that counter the bending
moment and keep the mast vertical and go 50 knots, about as fast a
nuke airfraft carrier.

The 'traditional' modern solution to that is multiple hulls, although
that has the penalty of what might be politely called a second stable
orientation. ?I didn't mean that we couldn't improve on the
performance of the tea clipper, I meant that maybe we need to
revisit the use of commercial sailing ships when oil gets
unaffordable. ? Imagine what the East India Company could have done
with carbon fibre masts, automated sail handling and modern
aerodynamic theory. And radar.

And dacron, refrigeration, GPS, a trolling motor to get around
port, . . .

They would be spending money like drunken sailors if they had access
to a modern dock store, trying to trade all kinds of now unobtainable
or illegal stuff for it, whale oil, ivory, diamonds . . .

Mind you a kite has several alternative stable configurations too -
stalled, aback, in the water, and knotted. ?It's all very well
designing for clear weather and flat seas, unfortunately commerce
doesn't wait for good weather, or confine itself to the trade wind
zones. ?

You don't need to eliminate the use of fuel, just reduce it as much as
possible.

The vessel would still have back up power.

The hard part would be deploying the kite.

It would be
nice to imagine a kite with a control system that could fly it
through a hurricane without breaking anything

Most masters are pretty good at avoiding hurricanes.

Not even possible quite a bit of the time.

 

[Rod Speed]

Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

If energy from the grid costs 13 cents/kW-hr and a 1000 cycle
battery costs 27 cents/kW-hr, and diesel is 40 cents/kW-hr,

Just more number plucked out of your arse. We can tell from the smell.

then a 33% efficient energy storage device that is capable of thousands
of cycles over its lifetime suddenly starts to look interesting.

But doesnt with real numbers.

Maybe it's possible to trade a little efficiency
for higher energy density or lower initial costs.

Fraid not.

For example, the flywheel below is 86% efficient
but has an energy density of only 5.5 W-hr/kg.

Pity about the other downsides of that.

It would be cost effective to find something that was only
50% or 40% efficient but with 10X the energy density.

No such animal.

http://www.magma.ca/%7efesi/50kW-1000Wh%20Flywheel%20System.pdf

System Description
Continuous rated power 50 kW

Useless as a tractor for any real work.

Peak power 120 kW
Charge or discharge time 60 seconds at 50 kW
Mass 135 kg
Volume 110 litres
Diameter 24 in (610 mm)
Height 18 in (460 mm)
Specific power 370 W/kg (continuous)
890 W/kg (peak)
Specific energy 5.5 Wh/kg
Typical DC interface 600 - 750V
Self-discharge rate 0.5 - 1.0 kW
Typical Efficiencies at Rated Power
Motor/generator 98%
Inverter 95%
Net one-way 93%
Net round-trip 86%
Flywheel Rotor
General description Composite flywheel rim with
aluminum hub
Operating speed range 15,500 rpm - 31,000 rpm
Polar inertia 0.720 kgˇm2
Energy storage 1,000 Wh @ 31,000 rpm
250 Wh @ 15,500 rpm
Net energy storage 750 Wh
Motor/Generator
General description Permanent magnet, 3-phase,
synchronous, liquid cooled
Frequency range 515 Hz - 1,030 Hz
Line-line voltage 230 Vrms at 515 Hz
450 Vrms at 1,030 Hz
Total inductance 100 ľH
Line-

 

[Rod Speed]

Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote

I'm still not a big fan of nukes, but I'm not totally opposed.

My great-grandfather was not a big fan of illuminating gas, but every
room in his home contained multiple gaslights.

My grandfather was terrified by the lethal potential of alternating
current electricity, but his home was completely wired for it, and he
owned numerous electrical appliances.

My father believed that television sets radiatiated x-rays plus were
fire hazards, still he owned three of them.

People in general were afraid of the consequences of a leak in a live
steam line (death by scalding), but many buildings in large cities
have it piped in for heating.

Many people today fear the electrogmagnetic fields produced by cell
phone, but this does no appear to diminish the number that you see in
everyday use. (I'm personally more concerned with working in a
building with a multi-megawatt TV transmitter sitting two floor above
my office, but I'd still work in one anyway.)

No new technology is without some level of risk/benefit tradeoff, and
today the focus is on nuclear power generation. ?

The difference with nukes is the cost-benefit risk analysis is more
complicated than an individualist deciding to wire his own home.

A individual doesn't decide where to put the nukes.

_Society_ decides where to locate the nukes.

Just as true of roads, airports, citys, dams, urban areas, etc etc etc.

The French can go nuke for the exact same reason railroads are straight in France.

Wrong, as always.

If any French landowner or other rich induhvidualist objects to
enlightened egalitarian public policy out comes the guillotine.

Wota fucking wanker.

That just ain't gonna happen in the U. S.

How odd that there just happen to be nukes in the US already.

And there have been nuke bomb tests there too.

with the current disparity in wealth.

Taint gotta damned thing to do with that.

If the rich try to locate a nuke in a poor area,
everyone will immediately understand the scam.

How odd that there just happen to be nukes in the US already.

And there have been nuke bomb tests there too.

My guess is that when
people become more familiar with it, it will be fully accepted as
just another form of technology that provides great benefits, but
requires caution in both its use and the locations chosen for the
reactors. Spent fuel is not a problem, because that vast bulk of it
is reprocessed, The dark side is that the reprocessing concentrates
the plutonium content, so that requires careful monitoring to
preclude any possiblity of it becoming available to make nuclear
weapons. Pure profit motives on the part of nuclear fuel
reprocessors would appear to assure that this is unlikely to happen,
because the peaceful applications of plutonium make it more valuable
than gold or platinum.

If the space elevator ever becomes reality,

It wont.

send the waste into the sun.

No point. It was nuclear before we dug it up, it can go back where it came from.

 

[Rob Dekker]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news8bu94pft0vnpoh62j67rgvnujsovvpqob@4ax.com...
.....

The ideal battery might use air as one reactant, have its chargable
component refreshed off-vehicle, and dump its wastes. Sure sounds like
a fuel cell to me. Or a gas engine.

Or a Zinc-air battery.
Which has the additional advantage that it produces no waste.

Rob

John

 

[Rod Speed]

Tim Jackson <tim@tim-jackson.co.uk> wrote

Rod Speed wrote
Tim Jackson <tim@tim-jackson.co.uk> wrote

It would be nice to imagine a kite with a control system
that could fly it through a hurricane without breaking anything

Nuke power makes a hell of a lot more sense.

Yes, and no problem with disposing of all those waste sails,

No problem with nuke waste. Completely routine, we've been doing that for half a century now.

or sailors getting needle injuries from repairing them. It'd keep the treasure seekers away from the wrecks too.

Nope.

Of course if you are in the nuclear industry it makes sense.

Pity I'm not.

 

[Rod Speed]

Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

SINCE ENERGY DENSITY ISN'T SUCH A BIG DEAL, WHAT ABOUT CAPS?

Sorry, no pun intended. My keyboard made an honest mistake.

Anyway, this would need to be spread sheeted to optimize
and to determine competitiveness but several wires over
the field could recharge multi farad capacitors in seconds.

Pity about the cost of all that wiring and the caps.

Biodiesel makes a hell of a lot more sense.

Sure the caps would weigh more than batteries but they'ld last forever . . .

Nope, they dont.

 

[Rod Speed]

Dean Hoffman" <""dh0496\"@ine$br#as&ka.com
<""dh0496\"@ine$br#as&ka.com"> wrote:

Mark wrote:
On Jul 29, 10:49 pm, Dean Hoffman <""dh0496\"@ine$br#as&ka.com"
wrote:
Mark wrote:
re cables to power electric tractors...
see "center pivot irrigation"
If they can do this, they can figure out how to get a cable to a
tractor.
Mark
There's a world of difference in the power requirements. Center pivot motors are three phase 480 in the U.S.
The older ones
used either a single one horsepower motor or a horse and a half
motor. The newer ones use motors half that size. The older ones
had 10 AWG Cu in the span cable to power the pivots that were 1/4
mile long. The newer ones can get by with 12 AWG Cu to power the
motors.

I'm sorry you missed my point.

My point is not about the amount of power needed to run the
irrigators vs a tractor... My point was, if a machine can be
designed to distribute WATER through a PIPE to a large circular area
like that, then a similar machine can be designed to distribute a
power cable to a tractor over a similarly large area.

Mark

I should've written more about what I was getting at.
The amount of power required would be a design consideration. The
weight of the necessary wire to allow for the voltage drop could be an
issue. The system would have to be strong enough to support both the
cable and the water if one wanted to use the system to irrigate. The
cost of the wire would be a big issue.
250 MCM is about $8/foot. 300 MCM is about $9.60/foot. 4/0 is
about $6.75/foot. Prices are for THWN 2 which isn't suitable for the
use, but the price was fairly easy to find.
Using 3 runs of 300 MCM plus one run of 250 MCM would total about
$48,000. Irrigation systems are a lot higher than I thought. I guess
they cost around $70,000 for a standard 1300 foot 7 tower system. That comes to about $968/acre if I pushed the right
buttons on my elcheapo
calculator.

That wouldn't include some sort of flexible cord and plug to actually get the power to the tractor. I wonder if
such a thing as
a 250 amp plug in actually exists

Yes it does. And it wouldnt be hard to design even if it didnt.

or would be safe to use if it did.

Corse it can be designed to be safe.

I can't picture how the actual working of it would be practical.

Yeah, its completely silly.

Let's say the farmer will plant in a circle to match the pivot. Put
the tractor at the first tower traveling at 5 mph. The 7th tower
would have to travel at 35 mph. Thirty five miles an hour in a field?

Yeah, its viable for water distribution but not for a tractor.

Through the gullies and over ridges or an occasional washout? Uh, no.

Its easy enough to landform so those are gone. Thats done for rice etc routinely.

The pivot would have to make a lot of circles to complete the
planting. Pivot wheel tracks are an issue during irrigation. They probably would be too for this application.

Nope, not if the pivot is used for irrigation.

Another consideration would be mud holes or obstacles for the pivot to get through or stop at.

Irrigation pivits handle that fine, basically with very large wheels.

Odd shaped fields would also create problems.

That just means that the odd shaped bits dont get used.

The last problem that comes to mind is coordinating the pivot speed to the tractor speed over the length of the pivot.
I suppose some bright college boy could do that but it wouldn't be cheap.

It wouldnt add much to the total cost.

Makes a lot more sense to use biodiesel in the conventional tractors tho.

 

[Dan Coby]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:1isu94hg2hk1sinl4ik239fm5un4nlloos@4ax.com...

On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 10:52:04 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

And hope for a better battery.

---
Hope?

Instead of helping in the quest, technically, it seems that all you
want to do is sit on the sidelines, puff yourself up as being an
authority, and poo-poo everyone else's work even though you haven't
the technical acumen to do so.

To what end?

Obvious troll.