Obama wants government behind new technology & jobs. by chrisisall

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Can I just say YAY Obama

Yes M'am.

Quote:
and poo-poo your picture of Kung Fu David Carradine?

Watch it, I might have to AURaptor-slap you.

The

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 8:29 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

REALLY off-topic

http://consciouslifeexpo.com/program09/workshops/Carradine.html

David Carradine will be speaking. It's on the other side of the country from you

, though, at LAX.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 8:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

http://consciouslifeexpo.com/program09/workshops/Carradine.html

Hmmm, cool. Maybe Barak will be there.

The sneaking-back-on-topic Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 8:46 AM

The goal of making the US less dependent on foreign oil is a good one, but Obama's stated policies will do the exact opposite. Obama claims that we can use alternative energy sources to get off foreign oil is nothing more than a pipe dream. At the same time he doesn't want to use any of the oil resources we do have because he's in bed with the environmental wackos. The Government can help the move to energy independence by providing tax credits for oil exploration and research into alternative energy source, but they can't force the adoption of alternatives until they become economically viable without doing great harm to the economy. Anyone that says that we can use alternative energy sources to get off oil in the short term is either ignorant of the potential of current technology or lying to satisfy the environmental extremists. I do think alternative energy sources should be explored, but we're looking at 100 years before they replace oil and coal. It makes a lot more sense in the short term to use the oil we have more efficiently and develop clean coal technology.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 9:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Anyone that says that we can use alternative energy sources to get off oil in the short term is either ignorant of the potential of current technology or lying to satisfy the environmental extremists.

Yeah. Does seem impossible, doesn't it?
We Browncoats don't wanna be thinkin' the impossible can be done, eh?

The independent Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 9:26 AM

I don't think Obama's got a lot of enemies, even here. I think that the real issues are
1. Will the Clintonistas let him do it
2. What will they want in exchange if they do
3. Is he actually serious, or just saying what people want to hear, and suspects they'll never really let him do it.
4. Who is this Obama guy anyway :)

Seriously, there are parts of his plan I like, and parts I think suck. The govt. needs to get out of the way. It's possible that this will help, the proof of the puddin' is in the eatin' of the fruity Obama bar.

Think of it this way, When G W Bush decided he was going to focus on America, Homeland Security, FEMA, etc. how'd that work out?

I'm going with wait and see. If he's gonna hand out money, that'll work. Of course, it'll tank the economy, but who cares? When you're already headed over the waterfall, what's a paddle or two. Maybe it'll help.

I'm somewhat worried that he's going to create a large number of makework jobs.

But no need to get all defensive over Obama, I've been reading these boards, and there's not a hell of a lot of anti-Obama bouncing around. Not like there was with Kerry or Clinton. But, we'll wait and see. Another thing to remember: Go back and check out Bush's 2000 campaign promises. I'm not saying all politicians are lying all of the time, but that president isn't dictator, they can promise you the moon, doesn't mean they can deliver. Honestly? I don't think President George W. Bush enacted a single piece of public policy.

I think the only veto I recall was on stem cells, and that wasn't his personal call, or cheney's, it was the drug companies. Think about it. The most powerful man in this admin. was Dick Cheney, a man with a terminal heart condition, and the willingness to kill everyone else on earth to survive, and he was part of a move to stop heart disease probably just long enough to prevent it from saving dick cheney. That says something about who is really pulling the strings.

Darth Cheney was also in favor of gay marriage. It's a complicated world, and America doesn't have a dictator, or a decider, it has a presider. And Obama gets to preside over a royal mess left behind, largely by an incredibly corrupt bypartisan congress, and yes, bushes and clintons, but mostly, the powers behind the throne, globalists, bankers, and just good old fashioned greed.

Wait 'n' see. Mebe, just mebe.

I like this Obama guy, btw, I think everyone here does, except maybe the Bagel fetish guy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 9:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

I like this Obama guy, btw, I think everyone here does, except maybe the Bagel fetish guy.

There are peeps here that are salivating to see this Socialist baby brutha fall on his face IMO.

The Obamafan Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 9:40 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
the powers behind the throne, globalists, bankers, and just good old fashioned greed.

Which is why, as I have said, the simple act of not taking lobbyist money is the single best thing he could have done.

As for the technology, it's there. It has high startup cost and maybe it won't all work for our needs, but it is there and it does work. My house runs solely on wind power. That's there, it works, it's economically viable. And we will work on "clean" coal. But the fact of the matter is, we don't have 100 years to make the transition, because that black gold is gonna run out. Anything that can be run without oil or with less oil needs to be, as soon as possible. Diesel should be left for the large trucks while smaller cars are converted to burn natural gas and homes run on wind, water, and sun. There's no good reason not to try. Maybe it'll get some jobs back on this side of the ocean, too.

[/sig]

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 9:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
There's no good reason not to try.

Sure there is, good old hatred of the left, and everything they embrace, workable or not!

The

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 9:53 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

There's no good reason not to try.

Even T. Boone Pickens thinks it's a good idea.

[/sig]

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 9:58 AM

JFK said Moon by '69; we did it.

If Obama says it, we can do it too.

I'm ready to do the impossible.

(BTW, I say Mars by 2020)

The believing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 10:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
There's no good reason not to try.
Sure there is, good old hatred of the left, and everything they embrace, workable or not!

Almost everyone believes we should try to replace oil and coal, but there are limits imposed by the dollar/BTU cost of current technology. Solar power sounds good, but how do you store solar power. Just do the calculation sometime of the acreage of solar cells required to replace one coal power plant and you will see what we're up against.

It's not so much that people what to see Obama fail as that they predict it based on the policies he advocates. I like having a good looking intelligent man like Obama as President. He presents the image of a US I like to see, but if he follows the direction he's headed, he will be a poor President. It does look like he is more practical than ideological and I am still hopeful, but he still sounds like he's running for Pres., not acting like he's Pres.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 10:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Solar power sounds good, but how do you store solar power.

I know a guy has solar on his house & he heats his water (& part of his house) year round with it... cost him 30k to install it, paid itself off in not too long. Imagine if more peeps do it & the cost comes down? Or if ya get an incentive from Uncle Sam?

Thing of it is, you work on what works, not what what doesn't.
"Waaaah, sorry Mister Kennedy, we can't make our rockets work the way we want 'em to..."

Don't be a don'tbee, be a Doobee.

The stinging Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 10:41 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Solar power sounds good, but how do you store solar power."

Solar power is a good idea for sunny places where peak demand happens during the day - for air conditioning. Baseline demand will either have to be met with battery storage, water storage (they pump the water up during excess E production, then use it to generate hydro-power at night), or you supply power to the grid during the day where they store it by various means, or some other method. It's not that hard ! Utilities do it already !

"Just do the calculation sometime of the acreage of solar cells required to replace one coal power plant and you will see what we're up against."

A one or two-story building in a sunny area can supply itself with all the electricity it needs. You know, if you're going to have to put a roof on your building anyway (and call them crazy, but some people like to have roofs), you might as well make it solar.

But the problem isn't just 'demand' in general (though, conservation would help a lot in that regard). It's PEAK demand. Utilities build many extra 'units' which do sit idle for 364 days/year just to meet peak demand on that one day. Why not take the edge off of peak demand with solar ? Or wind ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 11:25 AM

I see caveman has discovered fire

Quote:
Solar power sounds good, but how do you store solar power.

Very easily. There's a community in Ithaca that does this. A regular hyrbid battery will hold a heck of a lot of watt hours. The trick is, solar has to be individual.

You can't just make a "solar power plant" like china is doing. Make it local.

There are a lot of survivalists around here who do it, just make even those most makeshift hole in the ground places with a solar hookup to basement batteries, cuts you off the grid.

Civilized folk plug back into the grid, and feed excess power back into it and get paid.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 11:34 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Solar power sounds good, but how do you store solar power.
I know a guy has solar on his house & he heats his water (& part of his house) year round with it... cost him 30k to install it, paid itself off in not too long. Imagine if more peeps do it & the cost comes down? Or if ya get an incentive from Uncle Sam?

Thing of it is, you work on what works, not what what doesn't.
"Waaaah, sorry Mister Kennedy, we can't make our rockets work the way we want 'em to..."

Don't be a don'tbee, be a Doobee.

The stinging Chrisisall

"Oh Blackwater, keep on rollin, Mississippi moon won't you keep on shinin on me"

"Oh Blackwater, keep on rollin, Mississippi moon won't you keep on shinin on me"

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

Yes We Did!

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 11:46 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Plus you can "sell" the excess back to the electric company in your area for a nice fee. They can then use it for others. Just think, get enough people in the community doing this and the electric Co. will start paying us!

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

Yes We Did!

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 11:58 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Bad idea, letting the Gov't run things like this.

Italy and Gemany tried it, didn't work out too well.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 1:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Solar power sounds good, but how do you store solar power."

Solar power is a good idea for sunny places where peak demand happens during the day - for air conditioning. Baseline demand will either have to be met with battery storage, water storage (they pump the water up during excess E production, then use it to generate hydro-power at night), or you supply power to the grid during the day where they store it by various means, or some other method. It's not that hard ! Utilities do it already !

"Just do the calculation sometime of the acreage of solar cells required to replace one coal power plant and you will see what we're up against."

A one or two-story building in a sunny area can supply itself with all the electricity it needs. You know, if you're going to have to put a roof on your building anyway (and call them crazy, but some people like to have roofs), you might as well make it solar.

But the problem isn't just 'demand' in general (though, conservation would help a lot in that regard). It's PEAK demand. Utilities build many extra 'units' which do sit idle for 364 days/year just to meet peak demand on that one day. Why not take the edge off of peak demand with solar ? Or wind ?

Rue's got the right idea here, solar is an excellent choice in Florida were I live for individual homes. The problem is that most people live in densely populated cities. There's only enough surface area on the top of the Empire State building to power one office. Even with the latest technology it is difficult to economically store solar energy on a large scale, even more difficult to generate it.

I'm all for individuals and businesses using any economically viable form of alternative energy, but that's a very long term solution to energy independence. The only viable thing we can do in the short term is an "all of the above" approach like that proposed by Boone Pickens.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 1:30 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Maybe if we built buildings that looked like t.v. dinners......( an odd reference to use in the 25th century, that is already dated by the 21st century, but oh well )

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 2:31 PM

Quote:
Rue's got the right idea here, solar is an excellent choice in Florida were I live for individual homes. The problem is that most people live in densely populated cities. There's only enough surface area on the top of the Empire State building to power one office. Even with the latest technology it is difficult to economically store solar energy on a large scale, even more difficult to generate it.

对不上, I think the that most residences in urban areas and rural far up north here have way more solar space available than they need. As for office towers, you're right there's a problem, but you exaggerate the issue. The top of the empire state build, which is to say the sunny south face, would deliver a motherlode of power. You can also reduce the power consumption. My machine is pretty state of the art, it uses 12 watts, I don't think there's anything else burning power here, in an office, during the day, filter the sun into all the offices, there's your light, heat, solar cells against the back wall, collect, run the power for everyone, feed down to the lower floors. No, I think it can be done. I challenge. It would take some re-organization, but it could be done. NYC doesn't need it because we have an infinite power source. A couple of them. But sure, it could be done.

Quote:
I'm all for individuals and businesses using any economically viable form of alternative energy, but that's a very long term solution to energy independence. The only viable thing we can do in the short term is an "all of the above" approach like that proposed by Boone Pickens.

Probably. There are some all-solar businesses around here. Even in the really poor places, there are guys running 100% solar. So, it's not the money. In fact, it might be the poverty of this area that's making the push: It takes about 3 years to come out ahead on the expense, but if you plan ahead.

Realistically? Sure, I don't see the credit economy forking out for this home improvement, too many crossed interests. I'm actually more interested in the independence that solar offers than the cost or eco-friendliness. I'd like to be mobile, and not on the grid, not have an open account with a power company just to get my 12 w, and my 400w heater.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 2:39 PM

rap, check out the chinese gigawatt power-to-nowhere plan. This is govt. in action, classic.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-01/10/content_10635636.htm

sweet pork for ctdc, but wtf? I mean, solar on the roofs of people who are using the power, that makes sense. But picture what they spent on that rail system to get there, (2 billion?) then picture what they will spend on the power line going back to where the people are, another 2 billion, and then consider the power loss over a 2,000 mi powerline (100%?)

Ya, sure, they could build a superconductor line, if they wanted to way up the price, but it does seem like an intensly extravagant solution. Well, at least the commies will actually do it, here the contract would drag on for years because of the structure of our contract system, hourly labor, cost plus contracts, etc. The boondoggle big dig of nowhere nevada to power las vegas. Actually, that would make more sense.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 3:56 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Why the hell don't we just put mirror panels up in space, and then reflect the light down to Earth ? We could have light 100% of the time for the collection hubs down on Earth.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 4:39 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Why the hell don't we just put mirror panels up in space, and then reflect the light down to Earth ?"

Clouds ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 5:36 PM

Clouds aren't that much of an issue, Focusing your mirrors would be a minor issue, but sure, there are a lot of schemes you could construct for producing solar power.

But the harsh cold reality is that no one is working on the other end, which is where the real problem is:

Okay, so my machine is consuming 12 watts, and it's many times more powerful than my mother's computer which consumes a total of 450 watts. There's a lot of pointless power waste. The only reason newer laptops are so low power is to increase battery life, which for this one is about 5-6 hours. But on the desktop model, there's no drive for decreasing power consumption.

I'm not a big fan of mercury florescence, I prefer an incandescent or natural light. But there's also efficiency issues: No one considers the way light fixtures are made deeply impacts the illumination from a bulb. There are endless ways to do exactly what we're doing right now while consuming radically less power.

Here's one of the big ones that almost no one knows: The hot water heater consumes a minimum of 4-5000 watts, up to 10,000 if you have a really big one. I have a small 40 gallon, and I turn it on for 40 min in the morning, and that does the job. A lot of people have it on a thermostat, switching on and off, burning those watts 1/2 the day. If I run out, or the hot water is luke warm at night, I can turn it on for another 40 min, but this saves a lot of power.

Don't want a 20,000 watt car? Here's one that runs on 8,000, runs damn nice too:

It's a matter of efficiency.

The amount of power we could generate if the south roof were redone in solar panels would be 80kwh/day, which could be stored in the basement, in cells. I could run damn near anything on that.

If consumer goods were marketed from a power consumption angle of how much power they consume via how much they cost to operate, by battery life, etc, a competition could be started and the free market would radically reduce power consumption.

Even the above Tesla uses way more power than it needs, because it has sportscar torque (if you want to keep this, lower the power, and make it a hybrid) and it just weighs more than it needs to. 2700 is just heavier than you want a car to be, I think 1800 or so, for optimum handling ability. Over that, you start to lose that ultimate control. I think you could cut that to 5000-6000 on a sensible car, and I'd make the car all solar collector, self recharging, it would run forever.

Oh, but also, check out the range on the Tesla, it's sweet.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 7:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Why the hell don't we just put mirror panels up in space, and then reflect the light down to Earth ?

Wanna live within 100 miles of a beam that could incinerate you in a fraction of a second, or destroy a city if an unexpected meteor strikes it and sends it ever-so-slightly off course?
Can you say NIMBY???

The burning Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 8:00 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

DT: On the Tesla, range last time I looked was around 100 miles. Less if you're flogging it. MUCH less.

Yes, it'll do 0-60 in under 5 seconds, but at $100k, you'd rather expect it to.

As for weight, I'm right there with ya on that one, but good luck finding that 1800-pound new car anywhere in the U.S. market. Last time I checked stats, even presumably TINY cars like the Mazda MX-5 (Miata) and the Mini were well over a ton. The Miata has porked up to 2400+, and the Mini around 2500! They make my Honda CRX look positively svelte by comparison, at a "mere" 2200 pounds.

Even a Lotus Elise (a good chunk of which is what the Tesla is based on), once federalized to U.S. regs and specs, tips in at 2000 pounds. It's about as light a street-legal new car as you'll find in this country. Oh, and I hope you weren't planning on carrying more than one person and a couple small pieces of soft luggage with you, because there isn't anywhere to put them. Handling, though, is simply stupendous.

Honda will be reviving the CRX for 2010, with the new CR-Z. As always, it will be a 2-seat hatchback with front-wheel drive (good for economy, good for "safe" handling, not so great for "fun" handling, but we have our ways to make 'em more tossable), but this time around it's slated to be a hybrid. And it's going to weigh, at a minimum, 2400 pounds. :( And its gas mileage isn't expected to be any better than I'm getting with my '91 CRX. So far, I'm having a hard time trying to rationalize "upgrading" to the new model...

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 8:02 PM

Quote:

Wanna live within 100 miles of a beam that could incinerate you in a fraction of a second, or destroy a city if an unexpected meteor strikes it and sends it ever-so-slightly off course?

If I have the option to push people into the beam, then... YES! But I promise not to abuse that power; I'll only use it on those who talk on cell phones in the theater. Or kick puppies. Or abandon dogs.

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 8:39 PM

LOL

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 10:42 PM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I have a small 40 gallon, and I turn it on for 40 min in the morning, and that does the job. A lot of people have it on a thermostat, switching on and off, burning those watts 1/2 the day.

I'll do you one better: Heat on Demand. Oh yeah, baby, I love my heat on demand unit. It takes up maybe a cubic foot of space, and all I have to do is run the water for a minute and it starts to heat. I get hot water as long as I need, and no heating power is wasted. Awesome. It's a huge money-saver, aside from anything else it might save. Everyone should have them.

[/sig]

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 16, 2009 11:15 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Umm, on that whole orbital mirror death ray thing ?
You're a little late.

The Third Reich's Diabolical Orbiting Superweapon
http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=940

Of course, we have the distinction of having designed what is prolly the most heinous weapon EVER.

The SLAM.
http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=56
http://www.merkle.com/pluto/pluto.html

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 17, 2009 4:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
Heat on Demand. Oh yeah, baby, I love my heat on demand unit. .... Everyone should have them.

Tank-less water heaters provide a good example of the problems you run into when adopting new technology. They are super efficient, but they achieve their efficiency by using a large amount of energy over a short period of time. This means that many homes over 20 or more years old require an electrical service upgrade in order to install one. This more than doubles the cost and payback time for them. Another issue is one that Rue mentioned, "peak demand" times. Can you imagine if everyone had tank-less water heaters the strain it would put on the electrical grid when everyone that starts work at 8:00am turned on their shower in the morning.

None of these issues are insermountable, but they will take time. We need to focus our attention on those things that can make the most difference in the short term like automobile fuel efficiency, fluorescent/LED lighting and insulating homes and businesses. If we don't do the simple things first, what makes you think we're smart enough to do the difficult ones. Why start by replacing the entire infrastructure when you haven't even addressed the common sense things we've known about for 50 years.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 17, 2009 8:31 AM

The tesla was pushed as 220, maybe they were hypermiling, or, like toyota, they lowered the battery count from prototype to release (If I recall, the prius prototype had either 4 or 8, and then shipped with one.)

The VW Bug, potentially best car ever, was 1798, I think the morgan plus 4 came in at 1800. I'm not talking minicars, like the early suburus that came in at 900. But, a decent solid car. It's a lot of wasted weight, too.

Start with either a vw or a lotus chasis, and built it out of something light and strong. Then hell, you could easily make the perpetually solar recharging car, and it would be easy. All we need is a full scale economic collapse, and I believe we just ordered one

CRX is a nice car, btw, way up there on the best cars ever list.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 17, 2009 8:47 AM

Damn Interesting stuff

My father used to work for an NSF research lab, and I'm a dabbler in hard science. We can up with a weapon design, with some help from some other people. I'm never going to post this desgin. We scuttled it. It's very doable, but I know what Einstein should have known, which is what these guys would do if you gave them something like this.

Earlier on this forum I posted that the Nuke was obsolete. I'm not sure that at this moment, as a weapon of war, it is, but I could make it obsolete :) I've designed a fair number of things, that I keep to myself. Someday, but not today, not with these bastards in so much power. But being who I am, I'd build a defensive, rather than offensive, weapon. As you know, I'm into conflict avoidance, but I'm very keenly aware of what happens when peace society meets war society from an evolutionary standpoint. I've been thinking about this sort of thing for a long time.

One of the great past times I recall, and still get a kick out of, is watching govt. waste. I remember when my dad's guys designed a military magnetic submarine. It left no heat signature, and thus didn't appear on the satelite infrared. The next day after the engine was shipped, my dad got a call from the Kremlin. Some Russian Finn was calling in and said "nice work, you have a sub that doesn't show up on the IR. I can see it on a truck on I 40 from here. Unfortunately, though it doesn't read on our IR, it has a magnetic field which would be visible from mars. Have a nice day." Literally, like that, it's all they had to say. I believe we built the thing anyway.

Another story like that. In the middle of the Texas accelerator project design, One of the guys built a tabletop accelerator with more power, about model railroad sized. But, this is all about govt. contracts, so they went ahead and build some 15 mile monster under Texas anyway.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 17, 2009 12:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
The tesla was pushed as 220, maybe they were hypermiling, or, like toyota, they lowered the battery count from prototype to release (If I recall, the prius prototype had either 4 or 8, and then shipped with one.)

The VW Bug, potentially best car ever, was 1798, I think the morgan plus 4 came in at 1800. I'm not talking minicars, like the early suburus that came in at 900. But, a decent solid car. It's a lot of wasted weight, too.

Start with either a vw or a lotus chasis, and built it out of something light and strong. Then hell, you could easily make the perpetually solar recharging car, and it would be easy. All we need is a full scale economic collapse, and I believe we just ordered one

CRX is a nice car, btw, way up there on the best cars ever list.

DT: Yup, the Tesla probably was hypermiling a bit. I know in routine performance testing, the cars don't achieve anything like that range. It's the same trade-off you run into with a gas-engined car - if you floor it, your mileage will drop significantly, and if you drive it to keep the mileage up, you'll be days getting anywhere.

I'm excited about the Tesla, but I'm the first to point out that it's definitely not for everyone. It has extremely limited passenger and storage space, and it's well out of the financial reach of most mere peons. But it's an important step, and every success it achieves will make the next generations of electrics to come that much better for much less money.

As for the perpetually-recharging solar car, I think we're quite a ways from that, BUT something I've been proposing for quite a while now is to use solar tech to compliment the existing internal combustion or hybrid drivetrain. How? Simple enough: If you can get enough solar cells that are light enough and efficient enough, and you use them in the hood, roof, and trunklid (or even in the glass, if you can make them thin and transparent enough to act as window tinting), and you feed electric power into the car's system. Now, we're already seeing cars that use electric power steering, regenerative electric braking, and electric air conditioning units. Wire those in to run off the solar cells, and you've removed a BUNCH of pumping losses (it takes around 12hp to run your average air conditioner compressor on a car, for instance), so the engine you're using is using more of its potential energy to actually move the car, instead of to pump things around to run accessories.

Also, because these are now electric systems, and aren't feeding exclusively off the batteries, you could now program your climate control unit to have your car at, say, 78ºF when you get off work at 5:00pm, or to have it warmed up to 68º before you wake up in the morning - all without having to start the car at all!

These are things that are VERY close to going into production, and will add convenience and efficiency without adding too much complexity to existing systems.

As for keeping weight down, it's possible, but it gets very expensive very quickly in this day and age. The VW and the Morgan (lovely cars, by the way, but that wooden chassis is going to be a problem for the feds!) are gone because they couldn't keep up with the newer crash-safety regulations. It's the reason a Miata has ballooned from 2000 pounds to over 2400 in the last 18 years. There has to be a certain amount of structure, of a certain strength, encompassing a certain amount of "crush space", protected by a certain number of airbags, et cetera, ad infinitum...

How do you keep the cars safe AND light? It's not an impossible task. Ask a Formula 1 team. F1 cars weigh in at 500 kilos (1100 pounds) AND they're engineered to allow the driver to walk away from a 186mph headlong crash into a concrete barrier (ask Robert Kubicza about that - he sprained his ankle doing just that!) But the F1 teams also spend around $450 million dollars PER YEAR designing, engineering, and building those cars so they can run two teams of cars in 17 races a year. It's POSSIBLE to make 'em light and safe, but it ain't cheap!

We can make the lightER and safER, but it's going to up the costs, at least until the technology and economies of scale catch up. Carbon fibre, high-strength steel, composites, and aluminum all help keep weight down, as to titanium and magnesium. But all tend to be more expensive (both to work with AND as raw materials) than mild steel stampings, and aluminum has the added disadvantage of being less elastic; steel can generally flex a good deal, a great number of times, without fatiguing. Aluminum has less give for a fewer number of repetitions, at which point it just snaps, failing catastrophically. Carbon fibre is very light, but also very brittle - and it doesn't do well with heat (ask Michael Shumacher, who completely melted his rear suspension on his F1 car when an exhaust header broke loose and aimed red-hot exhaust gases straight at the carbon-fibre suspension pushrods!). Titnium is amazingly strong, amazingly light, AND does amazingly well with heat - but it's hideously expensive, and it's hard to work with as well, or so I'm told.

The next "revolution" I see in the automotive industry will be cars with more carbon-fibre and aluminum, some titanium and composites, far more use of digital technology and multiplexed wiring systems, and more efficient (but still primarily internal combustion) engine systems and hybrid engine systems. When you can make a lightweight (under 3000 pounds) four-seat car that's comfortable, safe, and drives well, AND gets more than 35 miles per gallon, AND costs less than a king's ransom to buy, maintain, and operate, the world will beat a path to your doorstep - or your dealership.

At present, the "exotic" materials like carbon-fibre and aluminum chassis and body panels are generally only seen in high-end "exotic" cars, while the domain of increased efficiency seems to be relegated to small, cheap cars. When you can find a way to meld those things together, you'll have really struck a chord.

For now, though, it seems you have to make a choice: Safe, Light, Cheap: Choose any two.

Oh, and by the way, thanks for the compliments on the CRX. I love 'em. At the moment, I have three of 'em. :) They're light ENOUGH, cheap ENOUGH (both to buy and to maintain, as well as to insure and drive), and safe ENOUGH. When I say "safe", I include something the crash-tests WON'T show you - how to NOT be in an accident in the first place. To me, ACTIVE safety is the absolute number one key; you don't have to worry about surviving the accident you never got into, and if you can avoid it by maneuvering out of harm's way, you're way ahead of the game. I can't tell you how many times a week I have to play dodge-em with the cell-phone-talking SUV drivers who'd rather be texting than driving!

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 17, 2009 1:02 PM

you, like me, need a little strunk and white.

1. the solar car boost would work, but so would the solar car, because it would recharge its range while parked. It would never generate enough energy to run the car, but it doesn't have to, if it has a long range battery, it extends that range, and then recharges to full.

Personally, I have no problem with a surrey with a fringe on top.

F1, expensive because each car is produced to beat the last car. If they were mass produced, they'd be pretty cheap, esp. if you cut down the max speed and acceleration.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 17, 2009 1:07 PM

Quote:
you, like me, need a little strunk and white.

Yup, and yup. I was *trying* to keep it down, but there was an awful lot of stuff that I wanted to cover, and what started as a reply ended up as an article. This is not the first time this has happened, nor the first time it's been commented on.

Mike

"It is complete now; the hands of time are neatly tied."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, January 17, 2009 3:00 PM