Special Deals Possible With Slotted Freeways

[Bret Cahill]

You are retired and own a diesel-electric RV. According to the
weather channel there will be a big front coming through next week and
the wind turbines feeding I-75 will run the cost of freeway
electricity down to 3 cents/kW-hr.

It won't cost $30 in energy to get from Ohio to Florida. You start
planning and packing . . .


Bret Cahill

 

[gearhead]

On Apr 30, 1:26 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

You are retired and own a diesel-electric RV.  According to the
weather channel there will be a big front coming through next week and
the wind turbines feeding I-75 will run the cost of freeway
electricity down to 3 cents/kW-hr.

It won't cost $30 in energy to get from Ohio to Florida.  You start
planning and packing . . .

Bret Cahill

150 years ago people were putting sails on Conestoga wagons and
calling them "prairie schooners."

 

[Bret Cahill]

You are retired and own a diesel-electric RV. �According to the
weather channel there will be a big front coming through next week and
the wind turbines feeding I-75 will run the cost of freeway
electricity down to 3 cents/kW-hr.

It won't cost $30 in energy to get from Ohio to Florida. �You start
planning and packing . . .

Bret Cahill

150 years ago people were putting sails on Conestoga wagons and
calling them "prairie schooners."

With road bed electrification you could move directly into the wind,
although, to be sure, it would be better if the wind was behind you.

Regenerative braking on hills is another advantage of ground
transportation coming directly from the grid. The energy is sent just
across the median to the traffic going uphill.


Bret Cahill

 

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

You are retired and own a diesel-electric RV. �According to the
weather channel there will be a big front coming through next week and
the wind turbines feeding I-75 will run the cost of freeway
electricity down to 3 cents/kW-hr.

It won't cost $30 in energy to get from Ohio to Florida. �You start
planning and packing . . .

Bret Cahill

150 years ago people were putting sails on Conestoga wagons and
calling them "prairie schooners."

With road bed electrification you could move directly into the wind,
although, to be sure, it would be better if the wind was behind you.

Regenerative braking on hills is another advantage of ground
transportation coming directly from the grid. The energy is sent just
across the median to the traffic going uphill.


Bret Cahill

Nobody in the real world puts on the brakes going down hills, down
mountains like coming out of Reno/Tahoe maybe, but hills, never unless
there is a highway cop next to them.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Benj]

On Apr 30, 1:26 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

You are retired and own a diesel-electric RV. According to the
weather channel there will be a big front coming through next week and
the wind turbines feeding I-75 will run the cost of freeway
electricity down to 3 cents/kW-hr.

Where do you idiots come from? There is this little thing called
"quantity" and the wind simply doesn't have enough of it. You could
make the trip from Ohio to Florida all right, just like you did in the
19th century using windmills (now referred to in the media and left-
libs as "turbines" to sound modern) to fill the watering troughs along
the way for your horse. But run your RV let alone a bunch of them?
Gimme a break.

Moron.

 

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

You are retired and own a diesel-electric RV. According to the
weather channel there will be a big front coming through next week and
the wind turbines feeding I-75 will run the cost of freeway
electricity down to 3 cents/kW-hr.

It won't cost $30 in energy to get from Ohio to Florida. You start
planning and packing . . .

Bret Cahill

150 years ago people were putting sails on Conestoga wagons and
calling them "prairie schooners."

With road bed electrification you could move directly into the wind,
although, to be sure, it would be better if the wind was behind you.

Regenerative braking on hills is another advantage of ground
transportation coming directly from the grid. �The energy is sent just
across the median to the traffic going uphill.

Bret Cahill

Nobody in the real world

Speaking of the real world, did you ever get any numbers on the amount
of mechanical energy converted to useless low temperature heat by
compression braking?


Bret Cahill

What in the world are you babbling about?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Bret Cahill]

Some are proposing building millions of 1 MW+ wind turbines, enough to
make a significant contribution to the grid. This energy, however,
will be wasted if it cannot be stored so utilities might learn from SW
Airlines and offer special deals, low energy prices on windy days.

This appeals to the bargain hunter [hunter gatherer] instinct.

Leave home 3 days early and you may save a bundle powering yer RV.

You are retired and own a diesel-electric RV. �According to the
weather channel there will be a big front coming through next week and
the wind turbines feeding I-75 will run the cost of freeway
electricity down to 3 cents/kW-hr.

Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

You are retired and own a diesel-electric RV. According to the
weather channel there will be a big front coming through next week and
the wind turbines feeding I-75 will run the cost of freeway
electricity down to 3 cents/kW-hr.

It won't cost $30 in energy to get from Ohio to Florida. You start
planning and packing . . .

Bret Cahill

150 years ago people were putting sails on Conestoga wagons and
calling them "prairie schooners."

With road bed electrification you could move directly into the wind,
although, to be sure, it would be better if the wind was behind you.

Regenerative braking on hills is another advantage of ground
transportation coming directly from the grid. �The energy is sent just
across the median to the traffic going uphill.

Bret Cahill

Nobody in the real world

Speaking of the real world, did you ever get any numbers on the amount
of mechanical energy converted to useless low temperature heat by
compression braking?


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

You are retired and own a diesel-electric RV. According to the
weather channel there will be a big front coming through next week and
the wind turbines feeding I-75 will run the cost of freeway
electricity down to 3 cents/kW-hr.

It won't cost $30 in energy to get from Ohio to Florida. You start
planning and packing . . .

Bret Cahill

150 years ago people were putting sails on Conestoga wagons and
calling them "prairie schooners."

With road bed electrification you could move directly into the wind,
although, to be sure, it would be better if the wind was behind you.

Regenerative braking on hills is another advantage of ground
transportation coming directly from the grid. The energy is sent just
across the median to the traffic going uphill.

Bret Cahill

Nobody in the real world

Speaking of the real world, did you ever get any numbers on the amount
of mechanical energy converted to useless low temperature heat by
compression braking?

Bret Cahill

What in the world

If you openly admit you cannot comprehend let alone do simple energy
calculations on the amount of mechanical energy wasted by heavy trucks
braking down hill, why do you make yourself look foolish by posting to
a thread on energy?

Are you really this stoopid in real life or are you just pulling our
legs?


Bret Cahill

 

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

You are retired and own a diesel-electric RV. According to the
weather channel there will be a big front coming through next week and
the wind turbines feeding I-75 will run the cost of freeway
electricity down to 3 cents/kW-hr.

It won't cost $30 in energy to get from Ohio to Florida. You start
planning and packing . . .

Bret Cahill

150 years ago people were putting sails on Conestoga wagons and
calling them "prairie schooners."

With road bed electrification you could move directly into the wind,
although, to be sure, it would be better if the wind was behind you.

Regenerative braking on hills is another advantage of ground
transportation coming directly from the grid. The energy is sent just
across the median to the traffic going uphill.

Bret Cahill

Nobody in the real world

Speaking of the real world, did you ever get any numbers on the amount
of mechanical energy converted to useless low temperature heat by
compression braking?

Bret Cahill

What in the world

If you openly admit you cannot comprehend let alone do simple energy
calculations on the amount of mechanical energy wasted by heavy trucks
braking down hill, why do you make yourself look foolish by posting to
a thread on energy?

What are you babbling about?

Can you calculate the amount of energy wasted that flows around a
tea pot?

Take your (prescribed) drugs.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

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

You are retired and own a diesel-electric RV. According to the
weather channel there will be a big front coming through next week and
the wind turbines feeding I-75 will run the cost of freeway
electricity down to 3 cents/kW-hr.

It won't cost $30 in energy to get from Ohio to Florida. You start
planning and packing . . .

Bret Cahill

150 years ago people were putting sails on Conestoga wagons and
calling them "prairie schooners."

With road bed electrification you could move directly into the wind,
although, to be sure, it would be better if the wind was behind you.

Regenerative braking on hills is another advantage of ground
transportation coming directly from the grid. The energy is sent just
across the median to the traffic going uphill.

Bret Cahill

Nobody in the real world

Speaking of the real world, did you ever get any numbers on the amount
of mechanical energy converted to useless low temperature heat by
compression braking?

Bret Cahill

What in the world

If you openly admit you cannot comprehend let alone do simple energy
calculations on the amount of mechanical energy wasted by heavy trucks
braking down hill, why do you make yourself look foolish by posting to
a thread on energy?

What are you babbling about?

If you cannot conduct elementary physics calculations either get a
Pell grant and enroll in an accedited university or start posting to
alt.harliquinromance.

Yet more meaningless babble.

Can you calculate the amount of energy wasted that flows around a
tea pot?

Energy "flows" around a tea pot?

Yeah, hot air, much like your postings.

What does that have to do with the energy savings from roadbed
electrification?

What do your random babblings and incomplete sentences have to do
with ANYTHING in the real world?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

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

What do your random babblings and incomplete sentences have to do
with ANYTHING in the real world?

If you openly admit you are too ignorant to do any calculations on the
amount of mechanical energy wasted by braking why don't you post to
threads that are on some subject that you can unnerstand?

If braking prevents the vehicle from crashing, is the energy truely
"wasted" or has it served a usefull purpose?

And in any case, before any energy calculations with any meaning in the
real world can be made, one would have to quantify the energy used
for braking.

I would suppose that one could equip trucks with sensors for fuel
flow, speed, weight and manifold pressure and come up with something,
but since that isn't done, you are just arm waving.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Bret Cahill]

You are retired and own a diesel-electric RV. According to the
weather channel there will be a big front coming through next week and
the wind turbines feeding I-75 will run the cost of freeway
electricity down to 3 cents/kW-hr.

It won't cost $30 in energy to get from Ohio to Florida. You start
planning and packing . . .

Bret Cahill

150 years ago people were putting sails on Conestoga wagons and
calling them "prairie schooners."

With road bed electrification you could move directly into the wind,
although, to be sure, it would be better if the wind was behind you.

Regenerative braking on hills is another advantage of ground
transportation coming directly from the grid. The energy is sent just
across the median to the traffic going uphill.

Bret Cahill

Nobody in the real world

Speaking of the real world, did you ever get any numbers on the amount
of mechanical energy converted to useless low temperature heat by
compression braking?

Bret Cahill

What in the world

If you openly admit you cannot comprehend let alone do simple energy
calculations on the amount of mechanical energy wasted by heavy trucks
braking down hill, why do you make yourself look foolish by posting to
a thread on energy?

What are you babbling about?

If you cannot conduct elementary physics calculations either get a
Pell grant and enroll in an accedited university or start posting to
alt.harliquinromance.

Can you calculate the amount of energy wasted that flows around a
tea pot?

Energy "flows" around a tea pot?

What does that have to do with the energy savings from roadbed
electrification?

Are you really a nonfunctional or are you just pulling our legs?


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

What do your random babblings and incomplete sentences have to do
with ANYTHING in the real world?

If you openly admit you are too ignorant to do any calculations on the
amount of mechanical energy wasted by braking why don't you post to
threads that are on some subject that you can unnerstand?

Maybe you could comment on a Harliquin romance novel or sumthin'.


Bret Cahill

 

[zzbunker@netscape.net]

On Apr 30, 4:27 pm, gearhead <nos...@billburg.com> wrote:

On Apr 30, 1:26 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:

You are retired and own a diesel-electric RV.  According to the
weather channel there will be a big front coming through next week and
the wind turbines feeding I-75 will run the cost of freeway
electricity down to 3 cents/kW-hr.

It won't cost $30 in energy to get from Ohio to Florida.  You start
planning and packing . . .

Bret Cahill

150 years ago people were putting sails on Conestoga wagons and
calling them "prairie schooners."

That was before they discovered that prariries have as many
broken axles as axles. Which is why the 21st Century technology
people
work on Satellites, GPS, Digital-Terrain Mapping, Drones, Cruise
Missiles,
cell phones, fiber optics, self-assembling robots, self-replicating
machines,
solar sails, pv cells, biodiesel, gas turbine engines, CD, DVD,
HDTV,
Holograms, Lasers, Masers, Microwave ovens, Microwave cooling,
On-Line Banking, On-Line Shopping, On-Line Publishing, light
sticks,
compact fourescent lighting, and autonomous vehilces,
rather than idiots and their History.

 

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

What do your random babblings and incomplete sentences have to do
with ANYTHING in the real world?

If you openly admit you are too ignorant to do any calculations on the
amount of mechanical energy wasted by braking why don't you post to
threads that are on some subject that you can unnerstand?

If braking prevents the vehicle from crashing, is the energy truely
"wasted" or has it served a usefull purpose?

Are you arguning that regenerative braking can not prevent crashes?

Obviously not;

Then why did you try to change the issue to preventing crashes?

If you agree that regenerative braking is as safe as conventional
braking and if you agree friction and compression braking converts
valuable mechanical energy to useless heat energy while regenerative
braking converts valuable mechanical energy to valuable electrical
energy, then how is friction and compression braking _not_ wasting
valuable mechanical energy?

Is English your native language?

And in any case, before any energy calculations with any meaning in the
real world can be made, one would have to quantify the energy used
for braking.

Can you provide _any_ numbers on _anything_?

Such as for what specifically?

At this point it would be a major accomplishment if we could see you
could calculate the potential energy in kilowatt hours of an 80,000
pound truck descending 4,000 feet.

That is a trivial and pointless calculation.

<Snip yet another childish ad hominem>

I would suppose that one could equip trucks with sensors for fuel
flow, speed, weight and manifold pressure and come up with something,
but since that isn't done,

Why would that need to be done?

To get real numbers.

But it's a lot easier to get "real numbers."

All you need to know is the potential energy of the vehicle at the top
of the mountain, mgh, and the wind drag to calculate the mechanical
energy wasted with conventional [nonregenerative] braking.

Which vehicle with what load, and which mountain?

Define that and you have one data point.

<snip meaningless arm wavining>

A load and grade weighted average to determine total nationwide fuel
savings.

It seems you are finally getting a glimpse of a clue.

To come up with any sort of meaningfull average, you need to know
for some statistically vailid period:

The total energy used.

The total energy "wasted".

Once you know that, you can decide whether or not such "waste" is
of any significance.

The energy "wasted" by one particular truck going down one particular
hill is meaningless.

Braking in stop and go traffic also needs to be included.

See above about getting totals.

Right now we'ld be happy with some back of envelope calculations,
something you have yet to provide on any matter.

Who is "we"?

A "back of envelope calculation" for a truck going from LA to Chicago
says the "waste" due to braking is trivial compared to the total
requirments.

As an aside, the total energy "wasted" by nonregerative braking of trucks
is likely many orders of magnitudes less than that lost by going
85 to 95 in the boondocks instead of 70.

Where does the term "likely" fit into the spread sheet?

It is called reality, a phrase you don't seem to understand.

Fuel usage figures for trucks are easily found (much more easily than
how much time is spent going down hills between LA and Chicago) and
fuel usage goes up significantly with speed.

It is trivially obvious that going 90 uses a lot more fuel than going
70.

The term "likely" comes from a back of envelope calculation of which
you seem to be so fond that shows such speeds "wastes" at least an
order of magnitude more fuel than braking and if there were hard
numbers for any of this, it is likely to be several orders of magnitude.

If saving energy were your real concern, you would be pushing for
mandatory governers on trucks.

Do you have any clue as to what percentage of fuel is burned on the
freeway?

Yeah, for trucks, which is what you've been going on about, most of it.

Trucks don't haul cargo from the Port of Long Beach to Pheonix, San
Diego, Fresno, or much less Chicago, over surface streets.

Trucking distribution centers and truck stops are generally located
close to freeways for reasons that should be obivious.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Bret Cahill]

What do your random babblings and incomplete sentences have to do
with ANYTHING in the real world?

If you openly admit you are too ignorant to do any calculations on the
amount of mechanical energy wasted by braking why don't you post to
threads that are on some subject that you can unnerstand?

If braking prevents the vehicle from crashing, is the energy truely
"wasted" or has it served a usefull purpose?

Are you arguning that regenerative braking can not prevent crashes?

Obviously not;

Then why did you try to change the issue to preventing crashes?

If you agree that regenerative braking is as safe as conventional
braking and if you agree friction and compression braking converts
valuable mechanical energy to useless heat energy while regenerative
braking converts valuable mechanical energy to valuable electrical
energy, then how is friction and compression braking _not_ wasting
valuable mechanical energy?

And in any case, before any energy calculations with any meaning in the
real world can be made, one would have to quantify the energy used
for braking.

Can you provide _any_ numbers on _anything_?

Such as for what specifically?

At this point it would be a major accomplishment if we could see you
could calculate the potential energy in kilowatt hours of an 80,000
pound truck descending 4,000 feet.

Do that and then we won't think you are a _complete_ moron.

.. . .

I would suppose that one could equip trucks with sensors for fuel
flow, speed, weight and manifold pressure and come up with something,
but since that isn't done,

Why would that need to be done?

To get real numbers.

But it's a lot easier to get "real numbers."

All you need to know is the potential energy of the vehicle at the top
of the mountain, mgh, and the wind drag to calculate the mechanical
energy wasted with conventional [nonregenerative] braking.

And that would be totally useless information

The energy saved using regenerative braking instead of friction
braking is useless information?

for the purposes of
either establishing policy or system design.

The energy savings are entered in the spread sheet that determines
policy and design.

Which truck and which mountain and with which load are you going to use?

A load and grade weighted average to determine total nationwide fuel
savings.

Braking in stop and go traffic also needs to be included.

Right now we'ld be happy with some back of envelope calculations,
something you have yet to provide on any matter.

As an aside, the total energy "wasted" by nonregerative braking of trucks
is likely many orders of magnitudes less than that lost by going
85 to 95 in the boondocks instead of 70.

Where does the term "likely" fit into the spread sheet?

If saving energy were your real concern, you would be pushing for
mandatory governers on trucks.

Do you have any clue as to what percentage of fuel is burned on the
freeway?


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

What do your random babblings and incomplete sentences have to do
with ANYTHING in the real world?

If you openly admit you are too ignorant to do any calculations on the
amount of mechanical energy wasted by braking why don't you post to
threads that are on some subject that you can unnerstand?

If braking prevents the vehicle from crashing, is the energy truely
"wasted" or has it served a usefull purpose?

Are you arguning that regenerative braking can not prevent crashes?

Are you _really_ this stoopid in real life or are you just pulling our
legs?

And in any case, before any energy calculations with any meaning in the
real world can be made, one would have to quantify the energy used
for braking.

Can you provide _any_ numbers on _anything_?

I would suppose that one could equip trucks with sensors for fuel
flow, speed, weight and manifold pressure and come up with something,
but since that isn't done,

Why would that need to be done?

All you need to know is the potential energy of the vehicle at the top
of the mountain, mgh, and the wind drag to calculate the mechanical
energy wasted with conventional [nonregenerative] braking

Again, are you _really_ this stoopid in real life or are you just
pulling our legs?


Bret Cahill

 

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

What do your random babblings and incomplete sentences have to do
with ANYTHING in the real world?

If you openly admit you are too ignorant to do any calculations on the
amount of mechanical energy wasted by braking why don't you post to
threads that are on some subject that you can unnerstand?

If braking prevents the vehicle from crashing, is the energy truely
"wasted" or has it served a usefull purpose?

Are you arguning that regenerative braking can not prevent crashes?

Obviously not; just trying to get you to define what the hell you are
talking about.

<Snip childish ad hominem>

And in any case, before any energy calculations with any meaning in the
real world can be made, one would have to quantify the energy used
for braking.

Can you provide _any_ numbers on _anything_?

Such as for what specifically?

All you've posted is generalized arm waving.

I would suppose that one could equip trucks with sensors for fuel
flow, speed, weight and manifold pressure and come up with something,
but since that isn't done,

Why would that need to be done?

To get real numbers.

All you need to know is the potential energy of the vehicle at the top
of the mountain, mgh, and the wind drag to calculate the mechanical
energy wasted with conventional [nonregenerative] braking

And that would be totally useless information for the purposes of
either establishing policy or system design.

Which truck and which mountain and with which load are you going to use?

As an aside, the total energy "wasted" by nonregerative braking of trucks
is likely many orders of magnitudes less than that lost by going
85 to 95 in the boondocks instead of 70.

If saving energy were your real concern, you would be pushing for
mandatory governers on trucks.

<Snip yet another childish ad hominem>

Are you capable of rational discourse or is arm waving and childish
ad hominems the limit of your ability?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.