Chip with simple program for Toy

[Rod Speed]

Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote

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

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.

Actually it is a problem

Wrong, as always.

since you are claiming that something is nothing like something else,

And everyone can see for themselves that that is true.

this without providing any evidence

Everyone can see for themselves that that is true.

for you theory os dis-similarity.

There is no 'theory' of anything you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

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.

I know logic pretty good, studied and did it since I was a kid.

Then you are clearly a pathological liar.

I exercise frequently and am in good shape

Completely irrelevant to what is being discussed.

and I am not a wanker.

Everyone can see for themselves that that is another bare faced lie of your.

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

Ripped from its context, yet again.

You talk about context but don't describe how much you prefer.

You're lying, as always. I TOLD you that you ripped away the original context, so that is clearly what I prefer.

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

 

In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

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

The vehicle still has to lug around the zinc oxide, which is heavier
than the original zinc. And it has to be collected and reprocessed.

Wiki puts zinc-air fuel cell density at 370 WH/KG. Gasoline is 12,500.
That's 34:1.

An EV can go 80 miles. A tractor only needs to go one mile.
That's 80:1

2.3 X more energy density than necessary.

When the farmer gets out the tractor, it usually runs for hours and
hours under load. The straight line distance isn't a factor.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Rod Speed]

Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote

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.

The vehicle still has to lug around the zinc oxide, which is heavier
than the original zinc. And it has to be collected and reprocessed.

Wiki puts zinc-air fuel cell density at 370 WH/KG. Gasoline is
12,500. That's 34:1.

An EV can go 80 miles. A tractor only needs to go one mile.

Wrong when batterys take so long to charge.

AND what matters is the POWER used, not the distance anyway.

That's 80:1

Just another stupid irrelevant number plucked from your arse. We can tell from the smell.

2.3 X more energy density than necessary.

Just another stupid irrelevant number plucked from your arse. We can tell from the smell.

 

[Rod Speed]

Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

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

The vehicle still has to lug around the zinc oxide, which is
heavier than the original zinc. And it has to be collected and
reprocessed.

Wiki puts zinc-air fuel cell density at 370 WH/KG. Gasoline is
12,500. That's 34:1.
An EV can go 80 miles. ?A tractor only needs to go one mile.
That's 80:1
2.3 X more energy density than necessary.

When the farmer gets out the tractor, it usually runs for hours and
hours under load. The straight line distance isn't a factor.

That was back in the old days _pre_ peak oil.

Things might not be quite so simple post peak oil.

Wrong, as always. They'll keep doing that using biodiesel, you watch.

Some are having difficulty accepting what should be a simple concept:

Pre peak: Easy street.

Post peak: Extra labor suddenly becomes cost effective.

You're are having difficulty accepting what should be a simple concept:

Pre peak: Easy street.

Post peak: Biodiesel leaves your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasys for dead.

 

In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

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

The vehicle still has to lug around the zinc oxide, which is heavier
than the original zinc. And it has to be collected and reprocessed.

Wiki puts zinc-air fuel cell density at 370 WH/KG. Gasoline is 12,500.
That's 34:1.
An EV can go 80 miles. ???A tractor only needs to go one mile.
That's 80:1
2.3 X more energy density than necessary.

When the farmer gets out the tractor, it usually runs for hours and
hours under load. The straight line distance isn't a factor.

That was back in the old days _pre_ peak oil.

Things might not be quite so simple post peak oil.

The requirements of farming haven't changed since humanity howed the
first row.

Some are having difficulty accepting what should be a simple concept:

Pre peak: Easy street.

Post peak: Extra labor suddenly becomes cost effective.

Without tractors most everyone will starve.

Human labor isn't an option. If it were, Africa wouldn't be starving.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Rob Dekker]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:c0ou94h6skor1kicrp0brqo6eoq0ruc5on@4ax.com...

On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 13:14:39 -0700, "Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com
wrote:


"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


The vehicle still has to lug around the zinc oxide, which is heavier
than the original zinc. And it has to be collected and reprocessed.

That is correct, but is keeping the zinc oxide in the vehicle a big problem ?

Wiki puts zinc-air fuel cell density at 370 WH/KG. Gasoline is 12,500.
That's 34:1.

Well, that's kind of comparing apples and oranges.

The battery drives a very lightweight electric motor, at 95% efficiency or so.
The gasoline drives a heavy ICE (+drivetrain/exchaust etc), at 20% efficieny or so (if you are lucky).

The efficiency factor alone reduces the factor 34:1 to 7:1.
And the motor mass difference could make up for another factor of 4 or so (simple replace the heavy ICE by battery mass).
So in reality the Zi-air battery should be less than a factor 2:1 off with a gasoline driven car, and probably at par in many
applications.

Advantage is that the Zi-air technology is very simple.
Disadvantage is of course that an infrastructure has to be put in place to replace and recycle the Zi-oxide.

Rob

John

 

[Rod Speed]

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
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

The vehicle still has to lug around the zinc oxide, which is
heavier than the original zinc. And it has to be collected and
reprocessed.

Wiki puts zinc-air fuel cell density at 370 WH/KG. Gasoline is
12,500. That's 34:1.
An EV can go 80 miles. ???A tractor only needs to go one mile.
That's 80:1
2.3 X more energy density than necessary.

When the farmer gets out the tractor, it usually runs for hours and
hours under load. The straight line distance isn't a factor.

That was back in the old days _pre_ peak oil.

Things might not be quite so simple post peak oil.

The requirements of farming haven't changed since humanity howed the
first row.

Some are having difficulty accepting what should be a simple concept:

Pre peak: Easy street.

Post peak: Extra labor suddenly becomes cost effective.

Without tractors most everyone will starve.

Human labor isn't an option. If it were, Africa wouldn't be starving.

Very little of africa starves. Where they do, its because they
have FAR more kids than their situation can possibly support.

 

[Rod Speed]

Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

Neural Dawrinism

Completely irrelevant to what was actually being discussed, how NEW IDEAS show up.

 

[Jonathan Grobe]

On 2008-08-11, Rob Dekker <rob@verific.com> wrote:

Well, that's kind of comparing apples and oranges.

The battery drives a very lightweight electric motor, at 95% efficiency or so.
The gasoline drives a heavy ICE (+drivetrain/exchaust etc), at 20% efficieny or so (if you are lucky).

The efficiency factor alone reduces the factor 34:1 to 7:1.
And the motor mass difference could make up for another factor of 4 or so (simple replace the heavy ICE by battery mass).
So in reality the Zi-air battery should be less than a factor 2:1 off with a gasoline driven car, and probably at par in many
applications.

You can't just look at the weight of the drivetrain/exhaust, etc--you have to compare

the weight of the whole ICE car vs the weight of the whole electric car.

--
Jonathan Grobe Books
Browse our inventory of thousands of used books at:
http://www.grobebooks.com

 

[Jonathan Grobe]

On 2008-08-11, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:

In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

When the farmer gets out the tractor, it usually runs for hours and
hours under load. The straight line distance isn't a factor.

That was back in the old days _pre_ peak oil.

Things might not be quite so simple post peak oil.

The requirements of farming haven't changed since humanity howed the
first row.

Some are having difficulty accepting what should be a simple concept:

Pre peak: Easy street.

Post peak: Extra labor suddenly becomes cost effective.

Without tractors most everyone will starve.

Human labor isn't an option. If it were, Africa wouldn't be starving.

I believe the author's philosophy is that you operate the

tractor say for a half hour and then spend 5 minutes re-charging
the battery---and that the cost of the tractor operator's
labor spent re-charging batteries is less than the additional cost
you would use with the higher priced fuel (diesel vs electricity).

--
Jonathan Grobe Books
Browse our inventory of thousands of used books at:
http://www.grobebooks.com

 

In sci.physics Jonathan Grobe <grobe@netins.net> wrote:

On 2008-08-11, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com <jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote:
In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

When the farmer gets out the tractor, it usually runs for hours and
hours under load. The straight line distance isn't a factor.

That was back in the old days _pre_ peak oil.

Things might not be quite so simple post peak oil.

The requirements of farming haven't changed since humanity howed the
first row.

Some are having difficulty accepting what should be a simple concept:

Pre peak: Easy street.

Post peak: Extra labor suddenly becomes cost effective.

Without tractors most everyone will starve.

Human labor isn't an option. If it were, Africa wouldn't be starving.

I believe the author's philosophy is that you operate the
tractor say for a half hour and then spend 5 minutes re-charging
the battery---and that the cost of the tractor operator's
labor spent re-charging batteries is less than the additional cost
you would use with the higher priced fuel (diesel vs electricity).

A 5 minute recharge, right.

Modern agribussiness doesn't run little, bitty tractors like Eddie
Albert drove around on the Green Acres TV show.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Rod Speed]

Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote

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

Neural Dawrinism

Completely irrelevant to what was actually being discussed, how NEW IDEAS show up.

Sorry,

Liar.

the normal process of refuting an analogy

There is no 'analogy' involved.

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

 

[Bob Eld]

"mowhoong" <mowhoong@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:26c0aad6-75f7-462d-899d-ad14353ea212@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com...

My house uses 4 fts length fluorescent light ( 20 W ) as lighting
source. When I remove the starter the light is still light up. I like
to know why it is working when the fluorescent light is in open
circuit ? Can any person help me ? Thanks

The starter doesn't do anything once the lamp starts. Its purpose is to
complete a circuit when cold that allows the filaments in the lamp to light.
Then, after several seconds to open the circuit causing an inductive kick or
voltage spike from the inductive ballast that strikes an arc or gas
discharge in the tube and the lamp lights. Once the lamp lights, the
filaments go off and are not required for normal operation, only starting.

With the lamp operating you can remove the starter as it does nothing once
the lamp is on. The starter is now in an open circuit condition.

However, once the lamp is off and cold, it will not restart without the
starter to break the circuit again and repeat the process.

Try starting the lamp cold without the starter. It may restart while warm
without the starter. Be sure to allow it to totally cool.

Many modern lamps don't use starters and don't use the above process for
starting..

 

[Rod Speed]

Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
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

<your flagrantly dishonest ripping from its context reversed>

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.

Actually it is a problem

Wrong, as always.

since you are claiming that something is nothing like something else,

And everyone can see for themselves that that is true.

Please explain what they can see for themselves.

Thats obvious from the context you flagrantly dishonestly ripped away and I have restored.

This sounds like a dodge in order to hide weak arguments on your part.

More of your flagrant dishonesty.

this without providing any evidence

Everyone can see for themselves that that is true.

I provided evidence,

You're lying, again. You didnt provide even a shred of evidence what so
ever and the shit you did wave around had no relevance what so ever
to what was actually being discussed, hOW NEW IDEAS SHOW UP.

<reams of your flagrant dishonesty flushed where it belongs>

for you theory os dis-similarity.

There is no 'theory' of anything you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.

Here is an outline of the theory

That aint MY theory, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.

<reams of your flagrant dishonesty flushed where it belongs>

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.

I know logic pretty good, studied and did it since I was a kid.

Then you are clearly a pathological liar.

In spades now.

I claim I have studied logic since I was young and you say false.

Nope, never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that, lair.

If I cannot or do not want to reveal any evidence for having studied
it that doesn't necessarily mean that I am a pathological liar.

Having fun thrashing that straw man, liar ?

What makes you decide this possible outcome?

Having fun thrashing that straw man, liar ?

I exercise frequently and am in good shape

Completely irrelevant to what is being discussed.

You said something about "lard ass" or something and I being
a semi-hard bodied individual responded that I exercise alot.

Irrelevant to your lard arse, liar.

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

and I am not a wanker.

Everyone can see for themselves that that is another bare faced lie of yours.

How so?

Everyone can see you desperate wanking, liar.

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

Ripped from its context, yet again.

You talk about context but don't describe how much you prefer.

You're lying, as always. I TOLD you that you ripped
away the original context, so that is clearly what I prefer.

This original context, do you mean that you want to post everything?

Just the original context is fine, liar.


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

 

In sci.physics BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:

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

The vehicle still has to lug around the zinc oxide, which is heavier
than the original zinc. And it has to be collected and reprocessed.

Wiki puts zinc-air fuel cell density at 370 WH/KG. Gasoline is 12,500.
That's 34:1.
An EV can go 80 miles. ???A tractor only needs to go one mile.
That's 80:1
2.3 X more energy density than necessary.

When the farmer gets out the tractor, it usually runs for hours and
hours under load. The straight line distance isn't a factor.

That was back in the old days _pre_ peak oil.
Things might not be quite so simple post peak oil.

The requirements of farming haven't changed since humanity howed the
first row.

The industry has, however.

Yep, there's farm machinery with engines that exceed 500 hp now.

Some are having difficulty accepting what should be a simple concept:
Pre peak: ???Easy street.
Post peak: ???Extra labor suddenly becomes cost effective.

Without tractors most everyone will starve.

That's why electrification of agriculture is a pretty sure bet.

Non sequitur.

Human labor isn't an option.

"Labor" here means some fat guy sitting in an air conditioned electric
tractor.

So extra labor would be two fat guy sitting in an air conditioned
electric tractor for every one you used to run?

If it were, Africa wouldn't be starving.

Even I don't go that far.

"... as many as 38 million Africans are living under the threat of
starvation..."

http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/vol16no4/164food1.htm

Americans did pretty well before the first tractor.

America had been around for less than 50 years before the first
tractor.




--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Rod Speed]

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

In sci.physics BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:
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

The vehicle still has to lug around the zinc oxide, which is
heavier than the original zinc. And it has to be collected and
reprocessed.

Wiki puts zinc-air fuel cell density at 370 WH/KG. Gasoline is
12,500. That's 34:1.
An EV can go 80 miles. ???A tractor only needs to go one mile.
That's 80:1
2.3 X more energy density than necessary.

When the farmer gets out the tractor, it usually runs for hours
and hours under load. The straight line distance isn't a factor.

That was back in the old days _pre_ peak oil.
Things might not be quite so simple post peak oil.

The requirements of farming haven't changed since humanity howed the
first row.

The industry has, however.

Yep, there's farm machinery with engines that exceed 500 hp now.

Some are having difficulty accepting what should be a simple
concept: Pre peak: ???Easy street.
Post peak: ???Extra labor suddenly becomes cost effective.

Without tractors most everyone will starve.

That's why electrification of agriculture is a pretty sure bet.

Non sequitur.

Human labor isn't an option.

"Labor" here means some fat guy sitting in an air conditioned
electric tractor.

So extra labor would be two fat guy sitting in an air conditioned
electric tractor for every one you used to run?

If it were, Africa wouldn't be starving.

Even I don't go that far.

"... as many as 38 million Africans are living under the threat of starvation..."

http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/vol16no4/164food1.htm

Just because some fool claims that doesnt make it gospel.

'as many as' is there for a reason.

Americans did pretty well before the first tractor.

America had been around for less than 50 years before the first tractor.

 

[Rod Speed]

BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:

When the farmer gets out the tractor, it usually runs for hours
and hours under load. The straight line distance isn't a factor.

That was back in the old days _pre_ peak oil.

Things might not be quite so simple post peak oil.

The requirements of farming haven't changed since humanity howed
the first row.

Some are having difficulty accepting what should be a simple
concept:

Pre peak: ?Easy street.

Post peak: ?Extra labor suddenly becomes cost effective.

Without tractors most everyone will starve.

Human labor isn't an option. If it were, Africa wouldn't be
starving.

I believe the author's philosophy is that you operate the
tractor say for a half hour and then spend 5 minutes re-charging
the battery---and that the cost of the tractor operator's
labor spent re-charging batteries is less than the additional cost
you would use with the higher priced fuel (diesel vs electricity).

A 5 minute recharge, right.

The tractor can swap out batteries after every lap and never wait.

The batterys still need to be charged and that doesnt happen in half an hour.

Modern agribussiness doesn't run little, bitty tractors like Eddie
Albert drove around on the Green Acres TV show.

We really need a tractor pull.

You need to let go of your dick before you end up completely blind.

 

[Rod Speed]

BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:

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

The vehicle still has to lug around the zinc oxide, which is
heavier than the original zinc. And it has to be collected and
reprocessed.

Wiki puts zinc-air fuel cell density at 370 WH/KG. Gasoline is
12,500. That's 34:1.
An EV can go 80 miles. ???A tractor only needs to go one mile.
That's 80:1
2.3 X more energy density than necessary.

When the farmer gets out the tractor, it usually runs for hours and
hours under load. The straight line distance isn't a factor.

That was back in the old days _pre_ peak oil.
Things might not be quite so simple post peak oil.

The requirements of farming haven't changed since humanity howed the
first row.

The industry has, however.

Some are having difficulty accepting what should be a simple concept:
Pre peak: ?Easy street.
Post peak: ?Extra labor suddenly becomes cost effective.

Without tractors most everyone will starve.

That's why electrification of agriculture is a pretty sure bet.

Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant drug crazed fantasys.

Biodiesel will be used instead, you watch.

Human labor isn't an option.

"Labor" here means some fat guy sitting in an air conditioned electric tractor.

You havent established that there will be any more of that post peak oil.

If it were, Africa wouldn't be starving.

Even I don't go that far.

Americans did pretty well before the first tractor.

The very first did in fact starve.

 

In sci.physics BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:

When the farmer gets out the tractor, it usually runs for hours and
hours under load. The straight line distance isn't a factor.

That was back in the old days _pre_ peak oil.

Things might not be quite so simple post peak oil.

The requirements of farming haven't changed since humanity howed the
first row.

Some are having difficulty accepting what should be a simple concept:

Pre peak: ???Easy street.

Post peak: ???Extra labor suddenly becomes cost effective.

Without tractors most everyone will starve.

Human labor isn't an option. If it were, Africa wouldn't be starving.

I believe the author's philosophy is that you operate the
tractor say for a half hour and then spend 5 minutes re-charging
the battery---and that the cost of the tractor operator's
labor spent re-charging batteries is less than the additional cost
you would use with the higher priced fuel (diesel vs electricity).

A 5 minute recharge, right.

The tractor can swap out batteries after every lap and never wait.

Lots of things CAN be done, but that doesn't mean anyone is going
to do them in the real world.

Hell, I can make a motor out of a cow magnet, a magnifying glass,
and 4 Zippo flints, but no one is going to run a real machine with
one of them.

Modern agribussiness doesn't run little, bitty tractors like Eddie
Albert drove around on the Green Acres TV show.

We really need a tractor pull.

John Deere's latest stuff exceeds 500 hp.

What do you have Sparky?



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Rod Speed]

hhc314@yahoo.com wrote:

On Aug 10, 7:21 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 10:52:04 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill

BretCah...@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?

JF


On the subject of the the original thread, I've had the opportunity to
work with LARGE, energy storage capacitors. Trust me in telling you
that if their energy storage capacity were sufficent to drive a truck
for 15 miles, it could not carry the capacitors. They're heavy and
large.

I've been waiting for major breakthoughs on this suubject, but
advancement in battery technology seems to be making the greatest
advancements. That little NiMH battery on my electric drill seems to
do wonders, but after about a month of repeated use, it no longer is
able to hold a charge. Same with my 3 spare batteries.

I'm no authority on the subject,

Thats obvious.

but it seems to me like NiMH batteries are very similar to lead acid batteries
in that they are limited in their deep cycle number of recharge cycles.

Nope, NiMH does that fine with the right charging.

Wonderful when they work, but cost roughly $25
when you need a new one for your electric drill!

Not if you know where to get the replacements.