|
200 miles on one $1.00 charge.....
In article ,
says... "Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 05:34:56 -0700 (PDT), wrote: Solar energy hasn't been cost effective in the past, and is just starting to become an alternative now. If enough advances are made to its efficiency and reliability (longivity) in the next few years, it could become an attractive option. Same for electric cars, etc. Technology marches forward, just sometimes slower than we'd like. === Exactly right, and it is a huge mistake to bad mouth and discourage those improvement efforts. =========== I think serious additional research should be applied to resurrecting the ultra-genius, Nikola Tesla's idea of capturing and storing the electrical energy contained in lightning strikes. The average lighting bolt contains about 10-15 gigawatts of electrical energy. The average thunderstorm discharges enough energy to power the entire USA for about 20 minutes. At any one time there are over 2,000 thunderstorms occurring worldwide. That's a lot of free power if it could be harnessed. I agree. If people acted like they act now towards new technology, Tesla wouldn't have had a chance! They would have just said that the only electricity they knew about was lightening and that is dangerous. |
200 miles on one $1.00 charge.....
On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 09:52:49 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
I think serious additional research should be applied to resurrecting the ultra-genius, Nikola Tesla's idea of capturing and storing the electrical energy contained in lightning strikes. ==== OK, you first ! :-) Benjamin Franklin was lucky not to have been killed in his little capture experiment. I "captured" a lightning strike a few years ago with one our Norfolk Island Pine trees. It was not a good thing but there *was* a lot of energy involved. |
200 miles on one $1.00 charge.....
On 9/15/2012 10:34 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says... On 9/15/2012 8:34 AM, wrote: On Friday, September 14, 2012 6:03:44 PM UTC-4, BAR wrote: As I said the internal compustion automobile hasn't changed in 100 years. I think the point is that while the basic operating principles of the internal combustion engine haven't changed, the efficiency and reliability of it has dramatically increased in those 100 years. Solar energy hasn't been cost effective in the past, and is just starting to become an alternative now. If enough advances are made to its efficiency and reliability (longivity) in the next few years, it could become an attractive option. Same for electric cars, etc. Technology marches forward, just sometimes slower than we'd like. A cite for Loogie please. The rest of us get it. No, what you and your fellow anti-technology brethren don't "get" is the fact that all technology wasn't really viable in the beginning. But, if we were like you on the right are today, we'd still be rubbing sticks together to produce fire. Good **** gets invented. Bad **** gets invented. ****heads can't tell the difference. |
200 miles on one $1.00 charge.....
"Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 09:52:49 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: I think serious additional research should be applied to resurrecting the ultra-genius, Nikola Tesla's idea of capturing and storing the electrical energy contained in lightning strikes. ==== OK, you first ! :-) Benjamin Franklin was lucky not to have been killed in his little capture experiment. I "captured" a lightning strike a few years ago with one our Norfolk Island Pine trees. It was not a good thing but there *was* a lot of energy involved. =============================== No thanks. I forgot to mention that Tesla was also a certified nut case. He was one of those super geniuses that sometimes stepped over the line of sanity. I've been zapped by high voltage twice in my life. Once by being the accidental discharge patch of a filter capacitor for a 100,000 watt Navy transmitter. Knocked me about 10 feet across the room and up against the wall like a thrown rag doll. The second time I was touching the powered element in a system that was energized by 12,000 volts at 1-1/2 amps. It wasn't supposed to turn on, but the interlocks were overridden and it turned on in a freak accident. Don't remember much of that one. My last conscious recollection was my hands feeling like they were the size of basketballs and the next thing I knew I was in the emergency room being monitored with an EKG machine. Not long after we purchased the house we are in now, it was hit by lightning. The roof has cupola on which was attached a large, copper weather vane type thing. It was probably about 3 feet high and about the same or more wide. Fortunately, it was grounded to a pair of 10' copper ground stakes located in the basement of the house near the power distribution boxes. The lightning hit the weather vane and caused our driveway in front of the garage to light up with sparks, zaps and pops for about 5 seconds. The copper weather vane was completely vaporized. Not a trace of it remained. |
200 miles on one $1.00 charge.....
In article m,
says... On 9/15/2012 10:34 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... On 9/15/2012 8:34 AM, wrote: On Friday, September 14, 2012 6:03:44 PM UTC-4, BAR wrote: As I said the internal compustion automobile hasn't changed in 100 years. I think the point is that while the basic operating principles of the internal combustion engine haven't changed, the efficiency and reliability of it has dramatically increased in those 100 years. Solar energy hasn't been cost effective in the past, and is just starting to become an alternative now. If enough advances are made to its efficiency and reliability (longivity) in the next few years, it could become an attractive option. Same for electric cars, etc. Technology marches forward, just sometimes slower than we'd like. A cite for Loogie please. The rest of us get it. No, what you and your fellow anti-technology brethren don't "get" is the fact that all technology wasn't really viable in the beginning. But, if we were like you on the right are today, we'd still be rubbing sticks together to produce fire. Good **** gets invented. Bad **** gets invented. ****heads can't tell the difference. The market determines what is useful. |
200 miles on one $1.00 charge.....
"iBoaterer" wrote in message
... In article m, says... On 9/14/2012 8:56 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... On 9/14/2012 8:02 AM, BAR wrote: In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:19:34 -0400, BAR wrote: Electric cars have not advanced in 100 years. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evtech.shtml === That's not entirely true. Battery technology has advanced a lot, and the Volt is a much more comfortable, faster, safer and luxurious car than anything that existed 100 years ago. I'd buy one now if the price was more in line. Remind me to post a picture of my neighbors electric boat one of these days. It looks better and better every time the price of fuel goes up. But that's not what FOX told him.... What advances in batteries have we made in the last 100 years? Reduced weight, higher power. Think Li. Carbon based nanotube ultracapacitors, and on and on. http://www.technologyreview.com/news...ecent-battery- advances/ http://www.technologyreview.com/news...ies-charge-up/ I've heard it all before. I know all about charging and discharging cycles and issues. The materials may have improved but, the basic battery is still the same. You charge it, you discharge it, you charge it and the cycle keeps repeating until the battery wears out. That's like saying that automobiles are the same as they were when Henry first built one. Hey, the still have internal combustion engines, so using your analogy, they must still be the same! What has changed in an internal combustion automobile in the last 100 years? Fuel delivery... Turbo's, fuel injection... Plus just about everything in there has been advanced through what? Oh, that terrible "new technology"...... The basic properties of an internal combustion engine powered automobile has not changed in 100 years. Basic properties don't have much to do with anything. Modern steel composites still have the basic properties of iron ore, but they sure aren't iron ore. So what new technology projects are you helping design? Or are you just a member of the pep squad? I use technology every day in my job. ------------------------ so does everybody else. I designed the new technology before I retired. There is a hell of a difference between designing tech and using tech. As to the internal combustion engine, they are not really that much different than a model A engine. Sure the material science makes for longevity, and better all weather operation with Fuel injection and now the Kettering ignition has been improved, but it is still the same basic engine. |
200 miles on one $1.00 charge.....
In article ,
says... "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article m, says... On 9/14/2012 8:56 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... On 9/14/2012 8:02 AM, BAR wrote: In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:19:34 -0400, BAR wrote: Electric cars have not advanced in 100 years. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evtech.shtml === That's not entirely true. Battery technology has advanced a lot, and the Volt is a much more comfortable, faster, safer and luxurious car than anything that existed 100 years ago. I'd buy one now if the price was more in line. Remind me to post a picture of my neighbors electric boat one of these days. It looks better and better every time the price of fuel goes up. But that's not what FOX told him.... What advances in batteries have we made in the last 100 years? Reduced weight, higher power. Think Li. Carbon based nanotube ultracapacitors, and on and on. http://www.technologyreview.com/news...ecent-battery- advances/ http://www.technologyreview.com/news...ies-charge-up/ I've heard it all before. I know all about charging and discharging cycles and issues. The materials may have improved but, the basic battery is still the same. You charge it, you discharge it, you charge it and the cycle keeps repeating until the battery wears out. That's like saying that automobiles are the same as they were when Henry first built one. Hey, the still have internal combustion engines, so using your analogy, they must still be the same! What has changed in an internal combustion automobile in the last 100 years? Fuel delivery... Turbo's, fuel injection... Plus just about everything in there has been advanced through what? Oh, that terrible "new technology"...... The basic properties of an internal combustion engine powered automobile has not changed in 100 years. Basic properties don't have much to do with anything. Modern steel composites still have the basic properties of iron ore, but they sure aren't iron ore. So what new technology projects are you helping design? Or are you just a member of the pep squad? I use technology every day in my job. ------------------------ so does everybody else. I designed the new technology before I retired. There is a hell of a difference between designing tech and using tech. As to the internal combustion engine, they are not really that much different than a model A engine. Sure the material science makes for longevity, and better all weather operation with Fuel injection and now the Kettering ignition has been improved, but it is still the same basic engine. Yeah, and all computers are still abacuses. Got it. |
200 miles on one $1.00 charge.....
In article ,
says... In article , says... "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article m, says... On 9/14/2012 8:56 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... On 9/14/2012 8:02 AM, BAR wrote: In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:19:34 -0400, BAR wrote: Electric cars have not advanced in 100 years. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evtech.shtml === That's not entirely true. Battery technology has advanced a lot, and the Volt is a much more comfortable, faster, safer and luxurious car than anything that existed 100 years ago. I'd buy one now if the price was more in line. Remind me to post a picture of my neighbors electric boat one of these days. It looks better and better every time the price of fuel goes up. But that's not what FOX told him.... What advances in batteries have we made in the last 100 years? Reduced weight, higher power. Think Li. Carbon based nanotube ultracapacitors, and on and on. http://www.technologyreview.com/news...ecent-battery- advances/ http://www.technologyreview.com/news...ies-charge-up/ I've heard it all before. I know all about charging and discharging cycles and issues. The materials may have improved but, the basic battery is still the same. You charge it, you discharge it, you charge it and the cycle keeps repeating until the battery wears out. That's like saying that automobiles are the same as they were when Henry first built one. Hey, the still have internal combustion engines, so using your analogy, they must still be the same! What has changed in an internal combustion automobile in the last 100 years? Fuel delivery... Turbo's, fuel injection... Plus just about everything in there has been advanced through what? Oh, that terrible "new technology"...... The basic properties of an internal combustion engine powered automobile has not changed in 100 years. Basic properties don't have much to do with anything. Modern steel composites still have the basic properties of iron ore, but they sure aren't iron ore. So what new technology projects are you helping design? Or are you just a member of the pep squad? I use technology every day in my job. ------------------------ so does everybody else. I designed the new technology before I retired. There is a hell of a difference between designing tech and using tech. As to the internal combustion engine, they are not really that much different than a model A engine. Sure the material science makes for longevity, and better all weather operation with Fuel injection and now the Kettering ignition has been improved, but it is still the same basic engine. Yeah, and all computers are still abacuses. Got it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_ins...n_set_computer |
200 miles on one $1.00 charge.....
"iBoaterer" wrote in message
... In article , says... "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article m, says... On 9/14/2012 8:56 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... On 9/14/2012 8:02 AM, BAR wrote: In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:19:34 -0400, BAR wrote: Electric cars have not advanced in 100 years. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evtech.shtml === That's not entirely true. Battery technology has advanced a lot, and the Volt is a much more comfortable, faster, safer and luxurious car than anything that existed 100 years ago. I'd buy one now if the price was more in line. Remind me to post a picture of my neighbors electric boat one of these days. It looks better and better every time the price of fuel goes up. But that's not what FOX told him.... What advances in batteries have we made in the last 100 years? Reduced weight, higher power. Think Li. Carbon based nanotube ultracapacitors, and on and on. http://www.technologyreview.com/news...ecent-battery- advances/ http://www.technologyreview.com/news...ies-charge-up/ I've heard it all before. I know all about charging and discharging cycles and issues. The materials may have improved but, the basic battery is still the same. You charge it, you discharge it, you charge it and the cycle keeps repeating until the battery wears out. That's like saying that automobiles are the same as they were when Henry first built one. Hey, the still have internal combustion engines, so using your analogy, they must still be the same! What has changed in an internal combustion automobile in the last 100 years? Fuel delivery... Turbo's, fuel injection... Plus just about everything in there has been advanced through what? Oh, that terrible "new technology"...... The basic properties of an internal combustion engine powered automobile has not changed in 100 years. Basic properties don't have much to do with anything. Modern steel composites still have the basic properties of iron ore, but they sure aren't iron ore. So what new technology projects are you helping design? Or are you just a member of the pep squad? I use technology every day in my job. ------------------------ so does everybody else. I designed the new technology before I retired. There is a hell of a difference between designing tech and using tech. As to the internal combustion engine, they are not really that much different than a model A engine. Sure the material science makes for longevity, and better all weather operation with Fuel injection and now the Kettering ignition has been improved, but it is still the same basic engine. Yeah, and all computers are still abacuses. Got it. ------------------------------------- Actually the first computers which were cash registers were designed from the gauges on a steam ship. Other than the one they can not really figure out that was bronze and recovered from an early shipwreck in the Mediterranean. http://www.ancientx.com/nm/anmviewer.asp?a=28&z=1 Which predates Babbage's machine. IBM card machines were a follow on to punch card controls for cloth looms. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:35 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com