|
200 miles on one $1.00 charge.....
In article ,
says... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 08:45:30 -0400, BAR wrote: What advances in batteries have we made in the last 100 years? You put energy in and you take energy out. ==== That's what batteries do of course - store energy for use at a later time. How do you propose to advance that? Energy stored per pound has advanced a lot. If you don't believe that, take a look at the latest generation of cordless tools or laptop computers. Being able to store energy at a reasonable cost and weight is key to making electric vehicles practical. Although the Volt is not yet the ideal electric car, it is a step forward. Internal combustion engines started off slowly also. Take a look at the automotive engines of 100 years ago vs what we have today. The Tesla is quite the technological car though! It has a battery and electric motors. So? Your car still has an internal combustion engine. Is it the same as a Model A? Yes. The internal combustion engine has not changed much in 100 years either. Bull****! That's a very ignorant statement! Specifically what has changed? Metals used, fuel delivery systems, advances in combustion technology, advances in exhaust technology, much better efficiency, electronics for combustion, fuel efficiency, engine control, emissions, and on and on... Those are all just improvements on something that already existed. Well, I guess the same could be said of computing then. Same as it was in 1850 because DC current works the same now as it did then!!! Makes just as much sense as your posit. |
200 miles on one $1.00 charge.....
In article ,
says... In article , says... In article m, says... On 9/14/2012 7:58 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 08:45:30 -0400, BAR wrote: What advances in batteries have we made in the last 100 years? You put energy in and you take energy out. ==== That's what batteries do of course - store energy for use at a later time. How do you propose to advance that? Energy stored per pound has advanced a lot. If you don't believe that, take a look at the latest generation of cordless tools or laptop computers. Being able to store energy at a reasonable cost and weight is key to making electric vehicles practical. Although the Volt is not yet the ideal electric car, it is a step forward. Internal combustion engines started off slowly also. Take a look at the automotive engines of 100 years ago vs what we have today. The Tesla is quite the technological car though! It has a battery and electric motors. So? Your car still has an internal combustion engine. Is it the same as a Model A? compression, ignition, expansion, and exhaust. Yup, pretty much the same. That's all you know about a modern internal combustion engine? Figures. http://www.ehow.com/about_5132937_hi...bocharger.html As I said the internal compustion automobile hasn't changed in 100 years. And tires on your car are exactly the same as when the caveman carved a wheel out of stone..... got it.... |
200 miles on one $1.00 charge.....
In article ,
says... In article , says... In article , says... On 9/14/2012 9:24 AM, Meyer wrote: On 9/14/2012 8:06 AM, JustWait wrote: 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... Same old engine with a few refinements. Yup, the "technologoy" hasn't changed, but then again, it came in viable.... New technology isn't always better technology, if so, doctors would have fuel injected Leeches in jars on their shelves:) Hasn't changed??? Are you serious??? Yes. The components of an internal combustion automobile have not changed in 100 years. They may have had some refinements but they are basically the same. And computing hasn't changed since 1850 because DC current still flows the same way... got it..... |
200 miles on one $1.00 charge.....
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. |
200 miles on one $1.00 charge.....
In article ,
says... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 08:45:30 -0400, BAR wrote: What advances in batteries have we made in the last 100 years? You put energy in and you take energy out. ==== That's what batteries do of course - store energy for use at a later time. How do you propose to advance that? Energy stored per pound has advanced a lot. If you don't believe that, take a look at the latest generation of cordless tools or laptop computers. Being able to store energy at a reasonable cost and weight is key to making electric vehicles practical. Although the Volt is not yet the ideal electric car, it is a step forward. Internal combustion engines started off slowly also. Take a look at the automotive engines of 100 years ago vs what we have today. The Tesla is quite the technological car though! It has a battery and electric motors. So? Your car still has an internal combustion engine. Is it the same as a Model A? Yes. The internal combustion engine has not changed much in 100 years either. Bull****! That's a very ignorant statement! Specifically what has changed? Metals used, fuel delivery systems, advances in combustion technology, advances in exhaust technology, much better efficiency, electronics for combustion, fuel efficiency, engine control, emissions, and on and on... Those are all just improvements on something that already existed. Well, I guess the same could be said of computing then. Same as it was in 1850 because DC current works the same now as it did then!!! Makes just as much sense as your posit. You could go back to the abacus |
200 miles on one $1.00 charge.....
In article ,
says... In article , says... In article , says... In article , says... On 9/14/2012 9:24 AM, Meyer wrote: On 9/14/2012 8:06 AM, JustWait wrote: 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... Same old engine with a few refinements. Yup, the "technologoy" hasn't changed, but then again, it came in viable.... New technology isn't always better technology, if so, doctors would have fuel injected Leeches in jars on their shelves:) Hasn't changed??? Are you serious??? Yes. The components of an internal combustion automobile have not changed in 100 years. They may have had some refinements but they are basically the same. And computing hasn't changed since 1850 because DC current still flows the same way... got it..... Actually it was about 200 years earlier. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaise_Pascal And don't forget Jacquard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaccard_loom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaccard_loom |
200 miles on one $1.00 charge.....
|
200 miles on one $1.00 charge.....
|
200 miles on one $1.00 charge.....
|
200 miles on one $1.00 charge.....
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. |
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. |
200 miles on one $1.00 charge.....
"BAR" wrote in message ...
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 The modern computer is just a lot faster and handles bigger registers. Eniac was a 4 big register machine. |
200 miles on one $1.00 charge.....
"Califbill" wrote in message
m... "BAR" wrote in message ... 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 The modern computer is just a lot faster and handles bigger registers. Eniac was a 4 big register machine. ----------------------- BIT not Big. Sorry. Plus there are additional instructions. Plus different architectures, but overall they are very similar. You can do Digital Signal Processing with a PC or a MAC or an IBM 303x but you want it to do a Fast Fourier Transform really fast, then you use a designed DSP. So you can multiply really fast, as the coefficients can be read from different memories at the same time. Eniac was not real fast, but was designed to do ballistic tables for the army. Which you could do faster now, but not any better. |
200 miles on one $1.00 charge.....
In article ,
says... "Califbill" wrote in message m... "BAR" wrote in message ... 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 The modern computer is just a lot faster and handles bigger registers. Eniac was a 4 big register machine. ----------------------- BIT not Big. Sorry. Plus there are additional instructions. Plus different architectures, but overall they are very similar. You can do Digital Signal Processing with a PC or a MAC or an IBM 303x but you want it to do a Fast Fourier Transform really fast, then you use a designed DSP. So you can multiply really fast, as the coefficients can be read from different memories at the same time. Eniac was not real fast, but was designed to do ballistic tables for the army. Which you could do faster now, but not any better. Do you remember the CISC vs. RISC wars of the 80's and early 90's? Moore's law too care of the RISC problem. |
200 miles on one $1.00 charge.....
"BAR" wrote in message ...
In article , says... "Califbill" wrote in message m... "BAR" wrote in message ... 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 The modern computer is just a lot faster and handles bigger registers. Eniac was a 4 big register machine. ----------------------- BIT not Big. Sorry. Plus there are additional instructions. Plus different architectures, but overall they are very similar. You can do Digital Signal Processing with a PC or a MAC or an IBM 303x but you want it to do a Fast Fourier Transform really fast, then you use a designed DSP. So you can multiply really fast, as the coefficients can be read from different memories at the same time. Eniac was not real fast, but was designed to do ballistic tables for the army. Which you could do faster now, but not any better. Do you remember the CISC vs. RISC wars of the 80's and early 90's? Moore's law too care of the RISC problem. ---------------------------------------------------------- Yes I do remember, but Moore's law was only partially responsible. I designed a lot of gear with Reduced instruction set CPU's but the big change was large, cheap memory in a small package. Early 1990 Maxtor drives we had to deal with an 8 bit processor and overlay's to run the 5" and 3.5" drives. By the late 1990's the drive companies were using lots of TI DSP's for both the servo and the interface on the drives. The were not a complete instruction set machine, but were robust enough to do the job very well. Plus the cost. I worked with an RF unit for shrinking Collagen that has 2 small microcontrollers. and the replacement unit had an industrial PC. Bad design on the later unit, but the PC was cheap. |
200 miles on one $1.00 charge.....
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
... 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. --------------------------------- Does he have a Duffy? Where my daughter lives in the Naples area of Long Beach, CAlif, lots of the people have Duffy's tied to the dock. Nice boat for the canals and the Los Alamitos area. |
200 miles on one $1.00 charge.....
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
... On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:17:03 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "Wayne.B" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 02:31:36 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "Wayne.B" wrote in message . .. On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 19:40:51 -0400, BAR wrote: The more fish you catch with your boat the cheaper the fish become. === There you go, once again reminding me of my cost per fish. :) They've all be fun and memorable however, and the 8 or 9 Mahi Mahi have been very tasty. ------------------------------------------------------ Yep, I'll certainly never forget my $416,158.00 tuna. === My tuna was less than that (I think), but he was smaller than yours as I recall. ----------------------- For those involved in the catch, it gets bigger every year. :-) ==== Fish story alert, fish story alert ! Man the battle stations... --------------------------------------------------- At least my last tuna were cheaper than yours and Eisboch's. My July trip was only about $3500 for the 7 days and I took 470# of (10) Bluefin and (11) Yellowtail and (2) Dorado to the fish processor. Next trip will be a little cheaper if I get as much fish. Next trip is an 8 day and I bought it last night at a fishing group dinner for $2300 which is $175 less than what I paid for the 7 day. Does not include MX permits and any fuel surcharges or tips and fish processing. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:25 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com