Cost of Grid-Battery vs Diesel, Gasoline, Natural Gas and Ot

[Immortalist]

On Jul 26, 12:35 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:

Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote



Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote
Why not just charge battereis with solar put in racks of 20
warehouse charged universal racks electric cars of all kinds
switch out the racks 200 miles racks available every 20 miles
deposit on a rack 40 seconds to switch out the rack at a "station"
Not viable. Have you the remotest concept of how much solar would
be needed at each rack station, and how long it takes to charge the
rack again and how many cars would be swapping the rack on even
a single decent interstate ?
It wouldnt even be viable with nukes for the charging.
It would make more sense to use nukes to produce hydrogen and use that instead.
Naw, you charge them up outside town, on a large scale,
truck them in just like they do gas with tankers.
That wouldnt change a thing viability wise. In fact it would make it much worse.
One tractor truck load would carry alot of full tanks.
Again, the problem aint with moving the batterys, the problem is the amount of
time it takes to recharge them and return them to where you put them into cars.
That approach of centralised charging would just make that problem much worse
and you would need a lot more batterys in the process of being recharged.
I wouldn't say that it would be centralized, or as centralized as oil refinement.

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

This doesn't eliminate the possibility that gas/battery stations could
be smaller, to meet the demands of space in cities and allow swap
stations to be in as many places as gas stations are now, if the racks
were just trucked in and out.

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

That position assumes that there is not enough area to produce the
needed solar power. The company that is getting ready to attempt to
power Albuquerque New Mexico, with 4 square miles of mirrors, claims
that it would take a couple hundred spuare miles in the desert west to
power the entire country.

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

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

I apologise if I made it sound like they could only be trucked in and
out. I believe they could be charged where they are swapped in some
types of service stations. But in others they would be trucked in and
out. Maybe you should define "viable" so we can have a criterion to
work with.

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

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

Doesn't it take a couple of hours to charge 20 or 40 batteries with
the right amperage and current? At many auto stores they can
completely charge one battery in about an hour, but it gets hot. When
you say " won't work" it sounds like you have some pretty solid
evidence to back that up with. Its like your saying certainly without
a doubt it won't work now or ever. I am curious about that,
considering you strong and emotional looking language.

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

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

[/QUOTE]
Now you are swtitching from "not viable at all" to "less viable" I can
accept that language for logic sake. Upon reading my statement of "all
hung up" I am sorry, I should have said "dogmatic about how the issue
of how to get from here to there.

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

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

Currently the gas is stored underground. But stations would
probably turn into warehouses. When you pull up the standard
arm comes out, pulls out the tired pack and slaps another in,
in seconds. Faster than putting any liquid in.
The problem aint with swapping the battery, its with charging it so its usable again.
Are you saying that if this took off on a large scale that there wouldn't
be enough light to charge more batteries than each station could use?
No, that it takes too long to recharge them, compared with the rate at which
they are being discharged with all those cars heading down the interstate.
Then your saying that it would be impossible to charge two, three, or even
four times as many batteries as all cars could possibly use in a day?

Using solar, yep.

[/QUOTE]
When you claim that "it would be impossible to charge two, three, or
even four times as many batteries as all cars could possibly use in a
day" do you mean now or ever? Also to make such a strong claim it
seems that you would be ready to provide at least an outline of how
much energy is available and how much per space we might get from it.
Can you do that?

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

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

[/QUOTE]
Actually my original position was based upon mirors not solar cells.
This company in New Mexico has determined that they would only need 4
square miles of mirrors, steam engines and generators, to power
Albuquerque New Mexico 24 hours a day.

But as for the possibility of charging 3 or 4 times as many batteries
as people could use, would the limitation be upon how much space is
present or how much is usable. And the idea that things can be trucked
around the country in very large scales is not odd. The idea wouldn't
seem strange to Walmart considering the tonage they move around the
country daily.

[QUOTE]which of course would be begging the question itself.

Nope. Thats not what that phrase means.

[/QUOTE]
Begging the question is a fallacy where the arguer states one or more
premises and then merely repeats one of the premises as a conclusion.
Premises are supposed to support and give warrent to a conclusion.

When you correctly claim that "it takes too long to recharge them,
compared with the rate at which they are being discharged with all
those cars heading down the interstate" you are simply assuming that
the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises and
this does not constitute evidence for that conclusion; the implied
conclusion that since the unequal times of use and charge, then there
will not be enough space to charge all these batteries on a massive
scale.

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

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

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

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

Just more mindless silly shit.

[/QUOTE]
The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is
substituted for evidence in an "argument." If we consider your
argument it would be like saying that grammar is silly, but you would
have to continue using it else your words would be nonsense. Afraid
your trapped with logic since all arguments you propose necessarily
are constructed logically.

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

[QUOTE]Suppose the battery racks were being charged 24 hours a day.
They cant be with solar charging.
What if water was superheated and then stored in
thermoses and then de- pressurized to allow boiling
at night, and then run steam engines to turn generators.

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

[/QUOTE]
How much solar is available and how mush is usable. Please explain, is
it the amount of space required or would all these batteries use up
the energy of all available light on earth?

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

Nope.

[/QUOTE]
Oh. Well I concede that I don't know as much about this subject as you
people, but I noticed some shakee logic and responded.

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

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

[/QUOTE]
If The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a
person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or
misrepresented version of that position, and this sort of "reasoning"
is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position
simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself [i.e.] One
might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt
the person; then please point to where I did that so I can stop doing
that.

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


[QUOTE]Of course I am not imagining some back yard thing here but
charging areas everywhere, I mean major electric companies.
If you're going to charge them from the grid, there isnt
any point in recharging them centrally, it makes a lot more
sense to recharge them at the battery swapping stations.
Thats like saying that gas stations should refine their
oil and gas from crude to eliminate distribution charges.

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

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

[/QUOTE]
Well I concede that at some stations, that are very large for whatever
reason, could charge from the grid, but others would be trucked in, as
when the stations need to be smaller for whatever reason. I think my
reasoning behind that was that we want battery packs available in as
many places as gas is now.

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

Then you need to get your ears tested, BAD.

[/QUOTE]
OK, if you don't sound like one of them, there were people who
believed that it would never be possible to replace harses and buggies
with gas powered autos. The book I am thinking about has a vast amount
of quotes from people who were skeptical of the major inventions we
use daily now, when they were new.

[QUOTE]Replacing gas this ay wouldn't be some small project.
And wouldnt be viable either.
Here is where some argument is needed instead of merely heckling
down an evidence based argument with appeals to ignoratio.

Wrong again. YOU proposed the silly impractical scheme.

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

[QUOTE]YOU get to show how it can be done viably.

THATS how it works.

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

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

Just more mindless silly shit that misses the point utterly.

[/QUOTE]
Same stuff you must use to present any clear idea. Its clled grammar/
rhetoric/logic

[QUOTE]Suppose that it were possible to charge enough batteries a day
to supply every car,billions of them, so they could be driven 24
hours a day? Would that be the possible limit, I doubt it.
You'd have a problem with the fact that the charging takes longer
than the discharging.
If we replace the subject and predicate of your argument with X and Y we see how weak it is.

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

[/QUOTE]
Whenever you present an argument in any way, is has a form. In
predicate logic, which you are using whether you know it or not, you
are using common grammar with subjects and predicates. Sometimes
argument forms can be shown to be sufficient but not necessary, but
they appear to be both.

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

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

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

[/QUOTE]
Are you saying that you are arguing with good logic and your arguments
don't need to be any stronger, or are you saying that you are giving
up and resorting to ridicule?

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

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

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

[/QUOTE]
I you sure you might not have missed the important point about the
strange logical move you made? You could easily remake you statement
in an airtight fashion which I would not be able to avoid instead of
dragging this superflous proof thing in front of us as a distraction.

[QUOTE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud8JZLgNFHE
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7855053520463952175
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nGheClD-lY&feature=user
Just more mindless silly stuff that misses the point utterly.
Sorry put that in with reference to another post in this thread.
Nope, it was referring to those urls of yours.
The urls were in reference to boiling water and the further possibility
of storing highly heated water in thermoses to run steam engines at night.

Like I said, misses the point utterly.

[/QUOTE]
Can you clearly state the point so we can be clear. Was it a point I
or you made?

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

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

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

[QUOTE]Sorry about the logic ribbing

Its actually desperate wanking.

[/QUOTE]
Welcome to the philosophy world.

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

Wrong again. You've actually got your dick in your hand and will end up completely blind if you dont watch out.
[/QUOTE]
But I have been arguing in alt.philosophy for many years. How could I
be wrong?

 

[hans.dekeulenaer@gmail.co]

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.

Rob: thanks for pointing this out. Note that 30-40% conversion
efficiency is already a high value for a small diesel generator. You
would normally not get more than 30%. Moreover, this efficiency is for
constant operation at the optimum working point. If a generator runs
intermittently, it will be much lower (say 15-20%).

 

[Bill Ward]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 18:28:18 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

DB <abc@some.net> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote

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

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

It wouldnt even be viable with nukes for the charging.

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

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

How odd that you never ever have yourself, troll.

Now THAT's funny!

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 11:01:16 -0700, Bill Ward
<bward@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 18:28:18 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

DB <abc@some.net> wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Immortalist <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote

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

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

It wouldnt even be viable with nukes for the charging.

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

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

How odd that you never ever have yourself, troll.

Now THAT's funny!

---
Now THAT's insightful!

JF

 

Power electronics is easy. Just assume they can do any conversion at
100% efficiency at zero capital cost and you'll rarely be off by
enough to matter in the long run. It hasn't entered my calculations
in decades.

But for God's sake, don't let them find out!


Bret Cahill


"You will rarely be wrong if you attribute extreme actions to vanity,
moderate actions to habit and mean actions to fear."

-- Nietzsche

 

[Doc Holliday]

You can buy a lot of cell phone or laptop batteries with the amount of
money you are now paying for diesel, gasoline or other hydrocarbon
fuel.

And own your own stand alone solar power plant.

Peace,
Doc


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://venturebeat.com/2008/04/29/sunrgi-claims-bargain-basement-power-prices-from-new-solar-concentrator-design/

Sunrgi claims bargain-basement power prices from new solar
concentrator design
Chris Morrison | April 29th, 2008
When looking at next-generation renewable technologies, you’ll hear a
lot of claims about how cheaply they can create electricity. Usually
the figures hover around 10 cents per kilowatt-hour, which is about
low enough to compete with the mix of coal, oil and nuclear power most
utilities use.

No such small ambitions, for a new startup called Sunrgi, which is
unveiling its technology today at the annual National Energy Marketers
Association convention. Sunrgi claims it can provide power for as
little as half the above figure, at about 5-7 cents per kWh. That’s
low enough to undercut damn near everything, with the possible
exception of cheap, dirty coal — for which prices have been going up.
Conventional solar cells cost upwards of 20 cents per kWh.

Sunrgi uses a concentrating solar power design, which generally means
you start off with a tiny, highly efficient solar panel and focus in
the sun’s rays on it with mirrors and lenses. A variety of companies
already do this, including SolFocus, which has raised heaps of cash
and even sparked a small bidding war toward commercializing the
concept.

It’s debatable whether concentrated solar power can compete, long-
term, with regular solar panels, but Sunrgi says it has two tricks to
magnify CSP’s advantage. The first is a special, lens-only
concentrating design with built-in solar trackers, which can focus
over 1,500 “suns” on a single point (by comparison, one of the
previous biggest claims for concentration levels was Greenvolts’ 625
suns). For an idea of how this might work, try to think of the most
ingenious way possible to torch ants with magnifying glasses.

This scheme causes a problem, namely heating the solar cell that’s
supposed to be generating electricity to over 1,600 degrees Celsius
(or over 3,000 Fahrenheit). That’s where the second part of Sunrgi’s
technology comes in, with a special cooling design, combining active
and passive measures, that keeps the cell at around 30-40 degrees C
(86-104 F).

Cooling is important above a certain level to avoid actually burning
the solar cell, and below that point to reduce the failure rate. This
ties in heavily to the cost equation, co-founder Dr. KRS Murthy told
me in an interview — where other companies will have to pay heavy
maintenance and replacement costs, Sunrgi’s well-chilled cells will
last much longer, he said.

But beyond the details I’ve laid out, Sunrgi isn’t saying a great
deal. The members of the management team who joined me on a call
declined to give any further details of exactly how they cool the
solar cells. While they did suggest a size for their utility-scale
generation modules — 14 inches square, with a solar cell of less than
a centimeter square in the center — they are still applying for
patents, and so don’t want to describe the units further (although you
can get an idea from the pictures at right and below).

What they did say is that they’re still conducting field testing on
the units, continuing to optimize the basic design, and working on
models for different markets (aside from utility generation, they’re
looking at smaller commercial and industrial applications). That said,
perhaps the second most surprising assertion Sunrgi has to make, after
the price, is that they’ll be manufacturing within 12-15 months.

If Sunrgi can pull it off, that would be one of the faster production
turnarounds a new energy generation technology has yet seen. On the
other hand, if the price claims can be proven on a large scale, there
will be plenty of investment dollars lining up to grease the
industrial gears.

Speaking of funding, that’s the one missing part in the company’s
claims. While the founders and executives have solid backgrounds, they
haven’t yet announced where their backing is coming from. I’m told
that several top VC firms are in talks with the company, though, as
well as a “major strategic partner”, with announcements due in a week
or two — so stay tuned for more.






On Jul 24, 5:01 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:

A new diesel engine can cull up to 50 kW-hrs from a gallon of diesel.

Since there is no substitute coming on line anytime soon there is no
reason to believe the cost of hydrocarbon fuel will stop spiraling,
especially with China's double digit growth rate, with oil wells
"rolling over" and with the Fed trying to keep the frog from jumping.

In two years the cost of an equivalent of diesel fuel will be $8.50 a
gallon and in 6 years it will be $25/gallon, if not more.

Today the cost of mechanical energy from diesel power is 10 cents/kW-
hr., in two years it will be 17 cents/kW - hr. and in 6 years, 50
cents/kW-hr.

TVA now sells now electricity for 7 cents/kW-hr off peak.

You can buy a lot of cell phone or laptop batteries with the amount of
money you are now paying for diesel, gasoline or other hydrocarbon
fuel.

Polar bears and tropical frogs never even enter the equation.

Bret Cahill

 

[Immortalist]

On Jul 27, 12:53 am, "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
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote
Why not just charge battereis with solar put in racks of 20
warehouse charged universal racks electric cars of all kinds
switch out the racks 200 miles racks available every 20 miles
deposit on a rack 40 seconds to switch out the rack at a "station"
Not viable. Have you the remotest concept of how much solar would
be needed at each rack station, and how long it takes to charge the
rack again and how many cars would be swapping the rack on even
a single decent interstate ?
It wouldnt even be viable with nukes for the charging.
It would make more sense to use nukes to produce hydrogen and use that instead.
Naw, you charge them up outside town, on a large scale,
truck them in just like they do gas with tankers.
That wouldnt change a thing viability wise. In fact it would make it much worse.
One tractor truck load would carry alot of full tanks.
Again, the problem aint with moving the batterys, the problem is
the amount of time it takes to recharge them and return them to
where you put them into cars. That approach of centralised
charging would just make that problem much worse and you would
need a lot more batterys in the process of being recharged.
I wouldn't say that it would be centralized, or as centralized as oil refinement.
There's no point in doing other than recharging them where they
are swapped if you're going to use the grid to recharge them.
This doesn't eliminate the possibility that gas/battery stations could be smaller,

They wouldnt even be that.

to meet the demands of space in cities

There are no demands like that with car filling stations.

Part of viability would be to be able to move in and appropriate prior
infrastructure.

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

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

Possible, if the underground area was appropriated and devoted to
automatic battery pack moving machinary.

And it wouldnt work anyway, because it takes too long to recharge them.
That position assumes that there is not enough area to produce the needed solar power.

Corse there isnt. Its a trivial calculation.

Do you have any links to the calculation or do you know of a way to
explain it in basic language?

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

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

You might have me on that one since I heard and interview with the
company making the mirrors and establishing their tried and tested
standards with solar powered steam engine generators and thermos
storage of superheated water technologies.

http://www.us-tech.com/RelId/670088/ISvars/default/Schott_Solar_Building_New_Plan.htm
http://tinyurl.com/6dlqjl

Again, we are not both defining "scale of production and distribution"
nor "supply and demand" on large scales, the same way.
I'm not 'defining' anything, just rubbing your nose in the fact that your unviable approach
would be even less viable if the batterys arent recharged where they are swapped.
I apologise if I made it sound like they could only be trucked in and out.

I didnt say you did.

Then were you saying that trucking them in and out alone would not be
viable, by raising the point as supportive evidence for you position?

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

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

I suppose it might be possible have a days worth of battery packs in
one station, but some gas stations may be to small, even after
appropriating the underground storage area for gas.

But in others they would be trucked in and out.

Nope.

Why not?

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

The definition is that it works. Your scheme wouldnt.

Well I will try and find a definition we can use, if you disagree feel
free to pick another from the page.

....an action or proposed action which
has a feasible, realistic outcome...

http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Aviable

If by "works" you mean "feasible, realistic outcome" which part of my
"scheme" is not "feasible and realistic"? Remember you use of
"feasible" and "realistic" must be applicable to other uses and not
stipulated with special conditions solely for this argument.

I am talking about on a competitive level with existing energy production methods.
You're talking about an approach that just plain wont work, because it takes
too long to recharge the batterys. In spades if you plan to do that using solar.
Doesn't it take a couple of hours to charge 20 or
40 batteries with the right amperage and current?

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

Ya, isn't that about 20 yellow tops like they use in golf carts? I
think they use 6 of them, I use two myself for extra power in my
vehicle. Most auto stores can cook one of these to 98% in one hour,
though it will get hot. These are used in wheelchairs also.

http://www.optimabatteries.com/optima_products/yellowtop.php

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

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

They would need 20 dedicated cookers for one hours to charge a pack.
But I don't know much more about the charging abilities. I suppose
places that make these batteries have massive simualtanious charging
abilities.

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

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

Well there are probably regulations that won't allow home owners to
run chargers that can cook the battery up. Probably the auto shops
need a certification or liscense to use them.

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

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

Does it just seem unrealistic or are you imaginng a complete
replacement of the gas/fuel scheme as it exists? There is alot of gas
out there along the roads, so obviously there would have to be alot of
anything that eventually replaces it. Remember, before the automobile,
horse and buggy days, the idea of having gas wherever people normally
then rode their bio-vehicle [horses] would seem absurd.

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

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

Is the fact based upon current technology and infrastructure alone, or
I mean how would these "facts" be used against possibilities in the
near and far future? Are you asserting something about how long this
situation will persist? Is it the number of batteries required or the
distribution and charging that will never allow the schene to become
real?

I suppose you are all hung up on the unstated
assumptions about how we get from here to there?
Nope, just rubbing your nose in the fact that your unviable approach would
be even less viable if the batterys arent recharged where they are swapped.
Now you are swtitching from "not viable at all" to "less viable"

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

Here is where I suppose I would wander off from the oil refining and
electric generation metaphor and move it over to farming. Many areas
would farm the solar heat and then distribute it. But I admit I am
making this up as I go along. But as to your point of "just adds
time", I think that any one of the schemes could be made to work but
some would be more expensive. I suppose a bunch of styles would be
experimented with and competition would settle the issue as to what is
most efficient for us then.

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

I can accept that language for logic sake.

Nothing to accept.

This is where storing heated water in giant themoses wold be more
viable. Maybe even solar panels for the day and heated water during
the day used to run steam engines spinning generators at night. Why
not just bypass solar panels and batteries and just boil water with
mirrors?

http://www.us-tech.com/RelId/670088/ISvars/default/Schott_Solar_Building_New_Plan.htm
http://tinyurl.com/6dlqjl

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

Still just plain wrong. Nothing dogmatic about the facts.

Well I mean that it just sounded dogmatic since your contention didn't
seem to offer any evidence, or as the paste below claime [no attempt
at reflective justification];

A dogma, as we are using the term, is an assumption one makes
uncritically, with no attempt at reflective justification, and which
one feels is perfectly evident, something which, stands in no need of
serious examination. The unquestioned assumption that we gain
knowledge of the existence and characteristics of ordinary objects by
means of perception is a dogma...

....If a person says that he knows the answer to some question or
problem, and then tells us what he knows, his claim to know is
intended to end debate on the topic. If we are wondering whether all
liquids expand when they freeze, as water does, or whether that is a
special feature of water, and someone claims to know that this is a
special feature of water and that other liquids do not behave in a
similar manner, he is making a claim intended to terminate inquiry in
this matter. Often we welcome relief from uncertainty, but it is worth
asking whether such relief from doubt is philosophically warranted.

Once we note that a Knowledge claim is intended to terminate inquiry,
we may become wary of such claims, for fear of falling prey to
uncritical conviction; in other words, to dogmatism. Knowledge claims
are dogmatic, though we may not notice this, perhaps because we like
to think ourselves enlightened and undogmatic in our own knowledge
claims. But are we? Once we raise fundamental issues, dogma and
knowledge become inextricably intertwined. Our convictions concerning
the source of knowledge, how we know, are dogmatic. At one time it was
dogma that knowledge comes from revelation.. A peison accepting such
dogma might think she knows that someone is possessed by the devil, by
observing alterations in her personality and behavior that constitute
demonic possession. Starting from different assumptions, we might deny
that such people observed demonic possession. Notice how dogmatic our
competing claims are! We begin with a different dogma, crudely put,
that empirical science rather than revelation is the source of
knowledge. Having adopted that dogma, we reject those knowledge claims
based on competing assumptions, those of revelation, for example. So
which dogma is correct? The religious one? The scientific one? To ask
is to enter the debate with the skeptic, who answers with a question,
"Who knows?" Her smile reveals her conclusion? No one knows...

....We suppose that we know of the existence and characteristics of
objects by means of the senses, by perception. Perceptual belief is
the best source of knowledge, or so we dogmatically assume. But do our
perceptual beliefs constitute knowledge?

Philosophical Problems and Arguments: An Introduction
by James W. Cornman, Keith Lehrer, George Sotiros Pappas
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0872201244/

Entire book at Google
http://tinyurl.com/5qf5ym
http://books.google.com/books?printsec=frontcover&id=cRHegYZgyfUC&output=html

That of course is an important issue, but is somewhat off topic, as
I have addressed the topic.
Nope, you've just waffled on about what isnt the problem, how the
batterys are swapped.
Currently the gas is stored underground. But stations would
probably turn into warehouses. When you pull up the standard
arm comes out, pulls out the tired pack and slaps another in,
in seconds. Faster than putting any liquid in.
The problem aint with swapping the battery, its with charging it
so its usable again.
Are you saying that if this took off on a large scale that there
wouldn't be enough light to charge more batteries than each
station could use?
No, that it takes too long to recharge them, compared with the
rate at which they are being discharged with all those cars
heading down the interstate.
Then your saying that it would be impossible to charge two, three, or even
four times as many batteries as all cars could possibly use in a day?
Using solar, yep.
When you claim that "it would be impossible to charge two, three, or
even four times as many batteries as all cars could possibly use in a
day" do you mean now or ever?

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

Also to make such a strong claim

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

Can you provide any information to back that up? And how would it
apply to mirrors, steam engines, generators and thermoses?

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

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

Have you gone through the routine in your area or are you quoting
authorities which have? If the later do you have any links to their
data? The later is a good method of arguing as long as you can point
to sources.

It appears that you are just saying, no, but providing no evidence
to support the logic,
Wrong again. Have you even the remotest concept of how much
area of solar cells would be required to recharge that many
batterys every day, including the days when there isnt enough sun ?
Actually my original position was based upon mirors not solar cells.

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

This assumes alot about what mirrors can do, specifically magnify.

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

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

The youtube video showed one mirror heating enough water to run a
small steam engine.

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

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

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

But in the auto battery rack swap scheme no one owns any batteries.
There would probably be a deposit and then a fee for the electricity
in each pack switched out. I suppose in the gasoline world it would be
like instead of filling up, an arm would come out and swap gas tanks.
Making this up as I go along just concentrating on the logic and
consistency of the arguments.

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

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

A company or chain of companies might think it would be profitable.

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

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

The liquid fuel industry doesnt either.

Why would that stop them from making a buck if it was "viable"?

which of course would be begging the question itself.
Nope. Thats not what that phrase means.
Begging the question is a fallacy where the arguer states one or more
premises and then merely repeats one of the premises as a conclusion.

No one is doing that.

You may not be doing that but your argument style gives the appearance
of merely repeating your premise and claiming it is conclusive. Maybe
your premise is your conclusion which is OK as long as it has some
justifiability or premises to back it up.

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

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

What do you mean by "rubbing your nose in the fact"? Do you mean
pointing out a fact with emphasis? Besides you need to back up this
argument that concludes with the "facts" you have not done that yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_justification

and this does not constitute evidence for that conclusion;

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

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

I never ever said anything like that either.

Maybe you are implying that the cost would be disproportionate
to existing energy production an distribution methods?
Nope, that its just not feasible to charge that many batterys using solar.
When you say not feasable do you have at least a ball park figure to
shine some light on how absurd my proposition looks in light of your
contention about my proposal?

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

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

I would think that the battery industry would "farm" its own
electricity. But why couldn't the grid be increased to handle it?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html
Just more mindless silly shit.
The Appeal to Ridicule

It isnt even that.

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

Its mindless silly shit anyway.

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

Nope, nothing like.

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

Wrong again.

My contention was that whenever we make any areguments in predicate
logic, we use logic and grammar, else these aruments would be
illogical & ungrammatical. Any time a fallacy is apparent there is
usually something wrong with the argument style, this, even if the
argument is true, it falsifies itself as illogical.

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

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

So you are saying that when we argue for a point that we should
promote our ideas in a silly way and forget the logic behind our
presentation of said ideas?

Suppose the battery racks were being charged 24 hours a day.
They cant be with solar charging.
What if water was superheated and then stored in
thermoses and then de- pressurized to allow boiling
at night, and then run steam engines to turn generators.
There just isnt enough solar to charge that many batterys that way.
How much solar is available

Even you should be able to find that for yourself.

The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something.
Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad
Ignorantiam, is the logical fallacy of putting the burden of proof on
the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the
fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven
otherwise.

You commit this fallacy if you make a claim that needs justification,
then demand that the opponent justify the opposite of the claim.
Supposing that a proposition must be true because there is no proof
that it is false.

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=529511
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Shifting_the_Burden_of_Proof

In a political dog-fight one participant may make an unfounded
accusation towards their rival and demand that the rival politican
show PROOF that they are innocent. In most countries the burden of
proof is on the person making the accusation but by shifting this
burden it implies guilt on their opponent.

The power of this tactic is often enhanced by reliance on the the
accusation being made by a credible third-party and the inability of
the accused to respond effectively by media dedalines. A slow response
- even if credible - is considered less newsworthy and often reported
within the frame of reference set by the original accusation.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Shifting_burden_of_proof
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

and how mush is usable.

Just assume it all is, it still wont work.

Why not? And how long shall this situation persist into the future?

Please explain, is it the amount of space required

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

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

On the sufficient and the necessary; Though it may be sufficient to
satisfy the case in reference to only light falling on the swap shop,
it isn't necessarily always true when combined with the grid or the
corporate solar farms. You have not establish the case that solar
power couldn't possible come in from other sources outside the
station.

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

Corse they wouldnt.

Actually scrap that, are you saying that the number of
batteries and solar charging infrastructure needed to
charge in the daytime would be impossible to produce?
Nope.
Oh. Well I concede that I don't know as much about this
subject as you people, but I noticed some shakee logic

No you didnt.

Actually I did and pointed some of it out above. One shouldn't be
offended by error in logic, I don't know anyone but lawyers who are
that good at it, but they make mistakes that raise objections and all
that jazz.

and responded.

Made a complete fool of yourself, actually.

Actually conversing about logic doesn't seem foolish to me, why they
teach the stuff in schools? Are they foolish?

You have not produced any evidence to support that position yet.
Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
If The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply
ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted,
exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position,

It isnt.

and this sort of "reasoning" is fallacious

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

I don't believe I am. Maybe your not presenting enough evidence to
make your case. You have ridiculed and presented a distorted version
of my own argument and argued against this distorted version.

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

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

[i.e.] One might as well expect an attack on
a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person;

Utterly mangled all over again.

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

I never ever ever said that you did that.

You said I was attacking a straw man a couple of posts back and you
said I was just above.

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

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

You contend that logic has nothing to do with this discussion. Can you
elaborate on that a little more so I understand your position, it
seems rather vague if not ambiguous?

Of course I am not imagining some back yard thing here but
charging areas everywhere, I mean major electric companies.
If you're going to charge them from the grid, there isnt
any point in recharging them centrally, it makes a lot more
sense to recharge them at the battery swapping stations.
Thats like saying that gas stations should refine their
oil and gas from crude to eliminate distribution charges.
Nope, nothing like. Its completely trivial to distribute the
charging to the battery swapping stations when you are
recharging them from the grid. Its nothing like that with
oil refinerys which dont work at the level of gas stations.
It makes sense to distribute gasoline from refinerys instead
of trying to have a refinery at each gas station, but makes
no sense at all to be moving the batterys to a central recharge
station when its so easy to have a recharger at each battery
swapping station when the recharging is done from the grid.
Well I concede that at some stations, that are very
large for whatever reason, could charge from the grid,

They dont have to be very large.

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

Wrong again, and that would be completely unviable.

But it could be done if there were a profit right?

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

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

Well wouldn't there be a minimal necessary space to have enough
batteries for one day and some left over? If so even if a large
percentage of stations could accomodate the space and they were
charged from some sort of grid, what if it were a really small station
like in some major cities? Wouldn't trucking em in be a viable
solution as long as there were some profits involved?

Pity it wont be viable anyway.

Are you substitutting a claim intended to create pity for or in the
place of evidence in an argument?

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

###
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html
###

For that matter you sound like one of those cynics complaining when the automobile
was invented that they would never be able to replace the horse and buggy.
Then you need to get your ears tested, BAD.
OK, if you don't sound like one of them, there were
people who believed that it would never be possible
to replace harses and buggies with gas powered autos.

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

A common form of inductive argument is the argument by analogy. This
is an argument in which a conclusion is drawn about a situation based
on similarities of this situation (analogies) to previous situations.
For example, if we predict that a since it is snowing today a certain
employee will be late because in the past when it was snowing the
employee was late, we are making a probabilistic argument based on an
analogy, the occurrence of snow.

My analogy had to do with predicting the future in two cases, horse
and buggy days and with solar power, then you enter speculation about
the possibility that something exists. Objection here since your
comparison is out of line with the anological inference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy
http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/analog.htm

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

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

Good point. Would you have been one of them?

Replacing gas this ay wouldn't be some small project.
And wouldnt be viable either.
Here is where some argument is needed instead of merely heckling
down an evidence based argument with appeals to ignoratio.
Wrong again. YOU proposed the silly impractical scheme.
I am not claiming that you doing a straw man on my argument
but I can honestly tell you that I never dwelled upon the idea
that all batteries must be trucked in when I made this theory up.

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

What about private solar farming by independent electric companies?

YOU get to show how it can be done viably.
THATS how it works.
I agree, but first we need a defnition of viable to satisfy the conditions of the case.

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

I took the opportunity from you to define the term even though you
declined more than twice.

"feasible" & "realistic"

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html
Just more mindless silly shit that misses the point utterly.
Same stuff you must use to present any clear idea.

You're lying now.

Then your saying you don't use logic when you express truths?

Its clled grammar/rhetoric/logic

Nope, nothing like it.

When you say Nope, your saying that it is a logical falsehood, you
cannot escape from logic and grammer unless you stop typing, or type
randomely, gibberish.

Suppose that it were possible to charge enough batteries a day
to supply every car,billions of them, so they could be driven 24
hours a day? Would that be the possible limit, I doubt it.
You'd have a problem with the fact that the charging takes longer than the discharging.
If we replace the subject and predicate of your argument with X and Y we see how weak it is.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a clue.
Whenever you present an argument in any way, is has a form.

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

LOL
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Cua4N0LlrCs

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

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

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

Just more completely irrelevant silly shit.

Whenever you present propositions and argument you must use logic,
else it would be nonsense.

Maybe you could learn of a way to say what your trying to say with more strength.
Or maybe you could go and shove your head up a dead bear's arse.
Are you saying that you are arguing with good logic
and your arguments don't need to be any stronger,

Yep.

But you have been vague, not presented evidence, ridiculed, name
called, begged the question and more, any judge would have called a
mis-trial.

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

Nope, there is no ridicule there.

Name calling is ridicule as accepted by most rhetoric professionals.

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

Just more completely irrelevant silly shit.

How you say it has as much strength as the descriptive/explaination
that; refining crude into gas takes longer than burning it in an
engine therefore it is impractical and may be impossible.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a clue.
I you sure you might not have missed the important
point about the strange logical move you made?

Just more of your mindless wanking.

Philosophical Problems and Arguments: An Introduction
by James W. Cornman, Keith Lehrer, George Sotiros Pappas
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0872201244/

The method of counterexample and possible worlds

....First, we need a test for invalidity, that is, a method of showing
that the conclusion of an argument does not follow validly from the
premises. The technique we shall adopt is known as the method of
counterexample.

Finding a counterexample to an argument is a matter of imagining a
possible world in which the premises are true and the conclusion
false. The possibility of such a world shows the argument is invalid.
You can think of possible worlds as variants of our actual world. For
every way in which our actual world could have been different than it
is, there exists a possible world that is different in this way. For
example: The Iraq crisis might have led to the outbreak of the third
world war; therefore, there exists a possible world in which the
crisis led to the war. Reagan might not have been shot; therefore,
there exists a possible world where he was not shot. Your parents
might never have met; therefore, there is a world in which you were
never born. The expression, 'possible world,' is just a fancy way of
talking about the way things might be but actually are not. Possible
worlds are easily constructed: whenever you imagine some possible
alteration of the actual world, you construct a possible world that
differs in the altered respect from the actual world. Finding a
counterexample to a purportedly valid argument is a matter of
constructing a possible world in which the premises of the argument
come out true and the conclusion comes out false. This shows that it
is possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.

You can give your imagination wings in thinking up such worlds and
such examples, but you must not fly beyond the possible. A
counterexample need not be an example of anything that has ever
happened or of anything at all likely to happen. Just as long as the
example clearly describes something possible, a clearly possible world
in which the conclusion is false and the premises true, the argument's
claim to validity is refuted. You can refute invalid arguments by the
use of your imagination. Let us try this out. Consider the following
argument:

All Communists are opposed to capitalism.
Jones is opposed to capitalism.

Therefore
Jones is a Communist.

It is perfectly easy to describe a counterexample that shows that the
conclusion of this argument does not follow from the premises. Imagine
a possible world in which Jones is a person who believes that all
wealth and property should be owned and controlled by his family and
passed on by inheritance. Thus, he rejects both capitalism and
communism in favor of Jonesism, a heretofore unknown economic doctrine
which states that everything should belong to the Joneses. What is
described in this example is a possible world, and, supposing that
both the first and second premises are true, it is an example in which
the premises are true and the conclusion false. This counterexample
shows that it is possible for the premises of the argument to be true
and for the conclusion to be false. The argument has been shown to be
invalid. Imagination triumphs over invalidity. The argument is
destroyed.

The foregoing remarks illustrate the method of counterexample as it
applies to arguments. It is essentially a method for establishing
invalidity. We also have some tests for validity. If the argument is
in one of the valid argument forms cited above, then it is a valid
argument. Moreover, an argument may be shown to be valid by the
repeated use of the argument forms. Yet some arguments are obviously
valid, even though they are not in any of the argument forms
discussed. For example, from a statement such as

Jill is criminal lawyer.

we may obviously validly conclude

Jill is a lawyer.

Since there are valid arguments not covered by any of the argument
forms noted here, we need a procedure for deciding whether an argument
is valid. Our procedure will be as follows. We will regard an argument
as innocent until proven guilty. That is, we accept an argument as
valid until we think of some counterexample to prove that it is
invalid. Of course, this procedure must not be applied thoughtlessly
or uncritically. We must ask ourselves if it is at all possible that
this argument can be shown to be invalid by counterexample. We must
stretch our imaginations across possible worlds. If, after careful
reflection, we conclude that no such examples are to be found, we may
tentatively accept the argument as valid. This is the procedure we
will adopt.

EXERCISES

Find counterexamples to the following arguments. Use your imagination!
Remember that a valid argument may have false premises, so an example -
bowing a premise to be false does not constitute a counterexample
bowing the argument to be invalid.

1. If Smith is the thief, then Jones was involved in the crime.
Smith is not the thief.

Therefore
Jones was not involved in the crime.

2. All people apply for well-paying jobs.
Jane is a person who has a job she applied for.

Therefore
Jane has a well-paying job.

3. Social change always produces violence.
Violence is bad.

Therefore
Social change is bad.

4. If a person knows something, then he must have an idea of it.

Therefore
All a person ever knows are his own ideas.

5. Scientists are constantly discovering that all sensations are
caused by neurological processes.

Therefore
Sensations are nothing but physical processes.

6. I know for certain that I exist.
I do not know for certain that any physical thing exists.

Therefore
I am not a physical thing.

7. No argument has been found to prove mat God exists.

Therefore
God does not exist.

#######################################

Possible worlds: A test of possibility and necessity

There is a test of logical possibility or impossibility and logical
necessity that may prove useful and amusing. It is the imagination of
possible worlds. To decide whether something is logically necessary,
ask yourself whether you can imagine a possible world in which the
statement would be false without changing the meaning of any of its
words. Finding such a possible world is like finding a counterexample.
It is a possible case that refutes the claim that something is
logically necessary. To consider an example, you may think it
obviously true that all thought occurs in brains. Perhaps this is true
in our world. It is, however, easy to imagine a world in which there
are beings, disembodied souls, for example, who think. You do not need
to agree that there actually is any such world, only that it is
possible, to refute the claim that it is logically necessary that all
thought occurs in brains. Thus, even though it might be true in our
world that all thought occurs in brains, it is not logically necessary
that all thought occurs in brains. We can imagine possible worlds in
which beings think without brains. Heaven is one such imagined world,
and, alas, so is hell.

Thus, we have a test, a kind of imagination experiment, to test the
claim that some statement is logically necessary. If you can conceive
of a possible world in which the statement is false, then it is not
logically necessary. This is because the claim that something is
logically necessary is equivalent to the claim that it is true in all
possible worlds and false in none. The appeal to possible worlds is
also useful when considering whether a statement is logically
impossible. Try to imagine a possible world, one which might be quite
different from the actual world, in which the statement is true. If
you can think of such a world, then you will have refuted the claim
that the statement is logically impossible. That is because the claim
that a statement is logically impossible is equivalent to the claim
that there is no possible world in which it is true. Hence, finding a
possible world in which the statement is true refutes the claim that
it is logically impossible. Consider the claim that it is logically
impossible for cats to speak English. No cat in our world speaks
English, of course, but we can imagine a world in which cats evolve in
such a way that they can learn to speak, and that some of them speak
English. Instead of meowing plaintively at the door, cats in this
world say, "I would like to go outside now, please." It won't happen,
but the imagined world is possible and amusing to contemplate. That
suffices to refute the claim that it is logically impossible that cats
should speak English.

Thus, you can test whether a statement is logically impossible by
asking yourself whether you can think of a possible world in which the
statement is true. If you can, then the statement is not logically
impossible. Claims that some statement is necessary or impossible are
implicitly claims about the truth or falsity of the statement in all
possible worlds. The claim that a statement is logically necessary is
equivalent to the claim that it is true in all possible worlds, while
the statement that it is logically impossible is equivalent to the
claim that it is false in all possible worlds. That is the reason the
test works.

Thinking about possible worlds can afford you considerable pleasure
(because you can give full reign to your imagination rather than being
confined to consideration of what the world is actually like. Be
careful, however. Imagination can outrun the possible as well as the
actual. If you imagine a world in which there are round squares
conversing with numbers, you have imagined a world that is not
possible. There is no possible world which contains round squares
because such objects would [be both round and not round, square and
not square. If the world you imagine is implicitly contradictory in
this way, it is not a possible world. So the test must be used with
caution. It is nevertheless useful to philosophers as a standard
method for determining what is called the modality of statements; that
is, their necessity, impossibility or possibility.

May we appeal to possible worlds to show that a statement is logically
necessary, or that a statement is logically impossible, rather than
just attempting to refute such claims? If you have attempted to
imagine possible worlds in which a statement is false, and after a
judicious effort can find none, you may conclude tentatively that the
statement is necessary. Similarly, if you have attempted to imagine
possible worlds in which a statement is true, and after careful
deliberation you can find none, you may conclude tentatively that the
statement is impossible. You may only conclude tentatively that a
statement is necessary or impossible, as a result of your search for a
possible world; for the claim of necessity or impossibility is a claim
about all possible worlds. You may, of course, overlook some possible
world in your consideration. As you become a seasoned possible world
explorer, you will become more trustworthy in discovering possible
worlds. Consequently, your use of the test will become more
trustworthy, and you will become a more skilled philosopher.

To determine whether a statement is logically necessary or logically
impossible, it is importanHo understand the meaning of the statement
as clearly as possible. Indeed, to determine whether you have
described a counterexample or a possible world, you must often reflect
on the meaning of the words in your description to insure that no
contradiction is concealed in it. Definitions tell us what a word
means, and so we shall now turn to a consideration of definitions.

Philosophical Problems and Arguments: An Introduction
by James W. Cornman, Keith Lehrer, George Sotiros Pappas
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0872201244/

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

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

That would be ridicule and is not a form of evidence for your
conclusion about solar possibilities, but is a replacement for
evidence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ud8JZLgNFHE
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7855053520463952175
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nGheClD-lY&feature=user
Just more mindless silly stuff that misses the point utterly.
Sorry put that in with reference to another post in this thread.
Nope, it was referring to those urls of yours.
The urls were in reference to boiling water and the further possibility of
storing highly heated water in thermoses to run steam engines at night.
Like I said, misses the point utterly.
Can you clearly state the point so we can be clear.

Already did.

Domatic, an assumption your making uncritically, with no attempt at
reflective justification, and which you feel is perfectly evident,
something which, stands in no need of serious examination.

Was it a point I or you made?

You made, stupid.

Objection, just answer the question please.

Steam engines which turn generators, this without solar panels or batteries.
Like I said, it makes a hell of a lot more sense to use nukes instead.
Can you explain why it makes more sense to use nukes, in what sense I mean?

Much more economically viable.

What about saftey and storage of spent materials? Is economic
viability the only criterion for establishing an energy standard?

Sorry about the logic ribbing
Its actually desperate wanking.
Welcome to the philosophy world.

Wankers world, actually.

You use logic and philosophy every time you propose or contend
something, welcome to wankers world then.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=5oAIh8BpGec

but I come from alt.philosophy and I am going into normal mode now loc.
Wrong again. You've actually got your dick in your hand
and will end up completely blind if you dont watch out.
But I have been arguing in alt.philosophy for many years.

And making a complete fool of yourself all this time.

Are you saying philosophy is foolish?

How could I be wrong?

Pathetic.

Please explain.

 

[zzbunker@netscape.net]

On Jul 27, 11:56 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jul 27, 12:53 am, "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
Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote
Why not just charge battereis with solar put in racks of 20
warehouse charged universal racks electric cars of all kinds
switch out the racks 200 miles racks available every 20 miles
deposit on a rack 40 seconds to switch out the rack at a "station"
Not viable. Have you the remotest concept of how much solar would
be needed at each rack station, and how long it takes to charge the
rack again and how many cars would be swapping the rack on even
a single decent interstate ?
It wouldnt even be viable with nukes for the charging.
It would make more sense to use nukes to produce hydrogen and use that instead.
Naw, you charge them up outside town, on a large scale,
truck them in just like they do gas with tankers.
That wouldnt change a thing viability wise. In fact it would make it much worse.
One tractor truck load would carry alot of full tanks.
Again, the problem aint with moving the batterys, the problem is
the amount of time it takes to recharge them and return them to
where you put them into cars. That approach of centralised
charging would just make that problem much worse and you would
need a lot more batterys in the process of being recharged.
I wouldn't say that it would be centralized, or as centralized as oil refinement.
There's no point in doing other than recharging them where they
are swapped if you're going to use the grid to recharge them.
This doesn't eliminate the possibility that gas/battery stations could be smaller,

They wouldnt even be that.

to meet the demands of space in cities

There are no demands like that with car filling stations.

Part of viability would be to be able to move in and appropriate prior
infrastructure.

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

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

Possible, if the underground area was appropriated and devoted to
automatic battery pack moving machinary.

And it wouldnt work anyway, because it takes too long to recharge them.
That position assumes that there is not enough area to produce the needed solar power.

Corse there isnt. Its a trivial calculation.

Do you have any links to the calculation or do you know of a way to
explain it in basic language?

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

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

You might have me on that one since I heard and interview with the
company making the mirrors and establishing their tried and tested
standards with solar powered steam engine generators and thermos
storage of superheated water technologies.

http://www.us-tech.com/RelId/670088/ISvars/default/Schott_Solar_Build...http://tinyurl.com/6dlqjl

Again, we are not both defining "scale of production and distribution"
nor "supply and demand" on large scales, the same way.
I'm not 'defining' anything, just rubbing your nose in the fact that your unviable approach
would be even less viable if the batterys arent recharged where they are swapped.
I apologise if I made it sound like they could only be trucked in and out.

I didnt say you did.

Then were you saying that trucking them in and out alone would not be
viable, by raising the point as supportive evidence for you position?

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

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

I suppose it might be possible have a days worth of battery packs in
one station, but some gas stations may be to small, even after
appropriating the underground storage area for gas.

But in others they would be trucked in and out.

Nope.

Why not?

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

The definition is that it works. Your scheme wouldnt.

Well I will try and find a definition we can use, if you disagree feel
free to pick another from the page.

...an action or proposed action which
has a feasible, realistic outcome...

http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Aviable

If by "works" you mean "feasible, realistic outcome" which part of my
"scheme" is not "feasible and realistic"? Remember you use of
"feasible" and "realistic" must be applicable to other uses and not
stipulated with special conditions solely for this argument.

I am talking about on a competitive level with existing energy production methods.
You're talking about an approach that just plain wont work, because it takes
too long to recharge the batterys. In spades if you plan to do that using solar.
Doesn't it take a couple of hours to charge 20 or
40 batteries with the right amperage and current?

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

Ya, isn't that about 20 yellow tops like they use in golf carts? I
think they use 6 of them, I use two myself for extra power in my
vehicle. Most auto stores can cook one of these to 98% in one hour,
though it will get hot. These are used in wheelchairs also.

http://www.optimabatteries.com/optima_products/yellowtop.php

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

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

They would need 20 dedicated cookers for one hours to charge a pack.
But I don't know much more about the charging abilities. I suppose
places that make these batteries have massive simualtanious charging
abilities.

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

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

Well there are probably regulations that won't allow home owners to
run chargers that can cook the battery up. Probably the auto shops
need a certification or liscense to use them.

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

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

Does it just seem unrealistic or are you imaginng a complete
replacement of the gas/fuel scheme as it exists? There is alot of gas
out there along the roads, so obviously there would have to be alot of
anything that eventually replaces it. Remember, before the automobile,
horse and buggy days, the idea of having gas wherever people normally
then rode their bio-vehicle [horses] would seem absurd.

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

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

Is the fact based upon current technology and infrastructure alone, or
I mean how would these "facts" be used against possibilities in the
near and far future? Are you asserting something about how long this
situation will persist? Is it the number of batteries required or the
distribution and charging that will never allow the schene to become
real?

I suppose you are all hung up on the unstated
assumptions about how we get from here to there?
Nope,  just rubbing your nose in the fact that your unviable approach would
be even less viable if the batterys arent recharged where they are swapped.
Now you are swtitching from "not viable at all" to "less viable"

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

Here is where I suppose I would wander off from the oil refining and
electric generation metaphor and move it over to farming. Many areas
would farm the solar heat and then distribute it. But I admit I am
making this up as I go along. But as to your point of "just adds
time", I think that any one of the schemes could be made to work but
some would be more expensive. I suppose a bunch of styles would be
experimented with and competition would settle the issue as to what is
most efficient for us then.

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

I can accept that language for logic sake.

Nothing to accept.

This is where storing heated water in giant themoses wold be more
viable. Maybe even solar panels for the day and heated water during
the day used to run steam engines spinning generators at night. Why
not just bypass solar panels and batteries and just boil water with
mirrors?
[/QUOTE]
They aleady tried that some time ago. But it also why digital,
lasers,
holograms, nanotech, A.I. satellites, PV Cells, fiber optics, DVD,
and robots were invented,
Since the only thing the idiots know less about than batteries is
mirrors,



[QUOTE]
http://www.us-tech.com/RelId/670088/ISvars/default/Schott_Solar_Build...http://tinyurl.com/6dlqjl

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

Still just plain wrong. Nothing dogmatic about the facts.

Well I mean that it just sounded dogmatic since your ...

read more ť- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -[/QUOTE]

 

Nope.

Pathetic.

Wrong.

No way.

Ain't gonna happen.

Nukes.

 

[Bret Cahill]

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.

Rob: thanks for pointing this out. Note that 30-40% conversion
efficiency is already a high value for a small diesel generator. You
would normally not get more than 30%. Moreover, this efficiency is for
constant operation at the optimum working point. If a generator runs
intermittently, it will be much lower (say 15-20%).

Then work from diesel fuel is 4X more expensive than that from the
grid.

Battery costs 2X - 3X that of the grid so grid-battery is now
competitive with diesel in many applications such as plug ins and EVs.

The incentive to cut costs still more going straight grid is even
greater. Trains need to be electrified ASAP although the savings
would by more like 3X than 4X.


Bret Cahill





and is about the same as liquid fuel.

 

[Bret Cahill]

How odd that you never ever have yourself, troll.

Pathetic.

Nope.

Ain't gonna happen.

No way.

 

[Bret Cahill]

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

Doing math calculations without any reasoning or good reasoning is
nonsense. Numbers are only for the final tweaking.

The problem with this idiot is there is no reasoning either.

He just posts over and over,

"Nope."

"Ain't gonna happen."

"Prove it."

"No way."

"Show your work."

"Huge."

"Cite?"

"Nuke"

"Definition?"

Mostly at times when it makes no sense whatsoever.


Bret Cahill

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 06:39:23 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

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

Doing math calculations without any reasoning or good reasoning is
nonsense. Numbers are only for the final tweaking.

---
Absolute and utter garbage.
---

The problem with this idiot is there is no reasoning either.

---
LOL, 'this' was the perfect word to use!
---

He just posts over and over,

"Nope."

"Ain't gonna happen."

"Prove it."

"No way."

"Show your work."

"Huge."

"Cite?"

"Nuke"

"Definition?"

Mostly at times when it makes no sense whatsoever.

---
Because it makes no sense to you doesn't mean it makes no sense.


JF

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 10:21:52 -0700 (PDT), BretCahill@peoplepc.com
wrote:

Absolute and utter garbage.

Totally huge!

---
Yup, Valley Girl, alright...

JF

 

Because it makes no sense to you doesn't mean it makes no sense.

Your case worker gets a little chuckle out of you posting here,
doesn't she?

I guess it's better than you being out on the street.

 

Absolute and utter garbage.

Totally huge!

 

[Eeyore]

BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:

Absolute and utter garbage.

Totally huge!

Yes ! HUGE GARBAGE.

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 18:16:48 -0700, "Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com>
wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:t7ur8497kp03sde8sr0h0nds8tuuktb7kg@4ax.com...
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 06:39:23 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

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

Doing math calculations without any reasoning or good reasoning is
nonsense. Numbers are only for the final tweaking.

---
Absolute and utter garbage.
---

The problem with this idiot is there is no reasoning either.

---
LOL, 'this' was the perfect word to use!
---

He just posts over and over,

"Nope."

"Ain't gonna happen."

"Prove it."

"No way."

"Show your work."

"Huge."

"Cite?"

"Nuke"

"Definition?"

Mostly at times when it makes no sense whatsoever.

---
Because it makes no sense to you doesn't mean it makes no sense.


JF

John,

You start to sound like Rod Speed now. Are you using a chat program too ?

---
No, just pointing out that sense can exist without having to be
understood by everyone.

JF

 

[Bret Cahill]

Absolute and utter garbage.

Totally huge!

---
Yup, Valley Girl, alright...

You don't have to confess what we already knew.

 

[Bret Cahill]

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

Doing math calculations without any reasoning or good reasoning is
nonsense. �Numbers are only for the final tweaking.

---
Absolute and utter garbage.
---

The problem with this idiot is there is no reasoning either.

---
LOL, 'this' was the perfect word to use!
---

He just posts over and over,

"Nope."

"Ain't gonna happen."

"Prove it."

"No way."

"Show your work."

"Huge."

"Cite?"

"Nuke"

"Definition?"

Mostly at times when it makes no sense whatsoever.

---
Because it makes no sense to you doesn't mean it makes no sense.

JF

John,

You start to sound like Rod Speed now. Are you using a chat program too ?

For a _short_ time I wondered if he might be posting under two names.

Then I realized that peak oil has spawned an epidemic of confused
folk.

Now they are flaming each other which proves the more reasoned
conclusion. Sock puppets never flame each other.

You are looking at nothing less than massive social upheaval.


Bret Cahill