Re: Ambient Gravimagnetic Field and the Earth Field
I made a bunch is calculation errors on the previous posts in this thread, which was typical of me, but things are now looking about right. Ambient Gravimagnetic Field and the Earth Field BACKGROUND Only an object which is solid can sustain torque free precession. Therefor the earth, and even the earth-moon system, can not sustain torque free precession. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession) If we assume the precession of the earth is due to torque on the earth by the ambient gravimagnetic field, then, using the precession rate, we can compute the field strength of that ambient field. GYROS Let: a = angular acceleration (a vector) I = moment of inertia L = angular momentum (a vector) omega = angular velocity of precession (a vector) t = time Tp = period for one precession rotation Ts = period for one gyro spin rotation Q = torque (a vector) Q_earth = torque on earth from gravimagnetism w = angular velocity of gyro (a vector) So: Q = dL/dt = d(I w)/dt = I a Q = omega x L (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyroscope) PRECESSION TIME Tp = (4 Pi^2 I)/(Q Ts) (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession) EARTH Precession Period: Tp = 25,800 years = 8.142x10^11 sec. Precession Angular radius: 23 degrees 27 minutes Mass: 5.985x10^24 kg Radius: 6378 m. Rotation period: Ts = 86164 sec. BASIC GRAVIMAGNETIC VARIABLES ElectricGravitational q m * i E g B K J J_g epsilon_0 epsilon_g_0 = 1.192602x10^9 kg s^2/m^3 mu_0mu_g_0 = 9.329597x10^-27 m/kg c c_g = c Table 1: Gravity-electromagnetism Isomorphism Correspondence Table The mass of the earth is m_t_earth = 5.985x10^24 kg. The radius of earth is 6371 km. The moment of inertia for a sphere of radius r and mass M is (2/5) M r. For estimating purposes, considering the iron core out to 3500 m, we might assume, by weighed value, the mass is located in a ring of radius 1780 km, rotating once every day, i.e. at 2*Pi*1780 km/day = 129 m/s. The moment of inertia of the earth I is then I = m r^2 = (5.985x10^24 kg)(1780 km)^2 = 1.90x10^37 kg m^2. The gravicurrent is i_g_earth = (5.985x10^24 i kg)/day = 5.171x10^29 i kg/s. Note that i in the units here is the imaginary number (-1)^ (1/2). The gravimagnetic dipole moment mu_k of the earth's gravicurrent is thus the gravicurrent times the area of the current loop, or (5.171x10^29 i kg/s)(Pi*(1780 km)^2) gives: mu_k_earth = 5.15x10^42 i kg m^2/s TORQUE ON MAGNET IN UNIFORM FIELD A = area of current loop mu = i_amp A = magnetic moment Q = mu x B = torque TORQUE ON GRAVIMAGNET IN UNIFORM GRAVIMAGNETIC FIELD A = area of gravicurrent loop i_g = gravicurrent mu_g = i_g A = gravimagnetic moment Q_g = mu_g X K = torque TORQUE FROM PRECESSION TIME Given Q for 90 deg precession: Tp = (4 Pi^2 I)/(Q Ts) we have: Q = (4 Pi^2 I)/(Tp Ts) Where, from above: Tp = 8.142x10^11 sec. Ts = 86164 sec. I = 1.90x10^37 kg m^2. Q_earth = (4 Pi^2 (1.90x10^37 kg m^2))/ ((8.142x10^11 s) (86164 s)) Q_earth = 3.40x10^21 N m However, the above assumes a 90 deg angle of precession. Knowing Q_earth = I * (w x omega) and that the angle between w and omega is the precession angular radius: 23 degrees 27 minutes, we get Q_earth = Q * sin(23.45 deg.) = Q * 0.398 Q_earth = (3.40x10^21 N m) * 0.398 Q_earth = 1.353x10^21 N m AMBIENT GRAVIMAGNETIC FIELD Given: mu_g = mu_k_earth = 5.15x10^42 i kg m^2/s Q_g = Q_earth = 1.353x10^21 N m and knowing the angle between mu_g and gravimagnetic field K is the precession angular radius: 23 degrees 27 minutes: Q_g = mu_g * mu_g_0 X K we have scalar quantities: Q_g = mu_g * mu_g_0 * K * sin(23.45 deg.) K_ambient = Q_g/(mu_g * mu_g_0 * 0.398) K_ambient = i (1.353x10^21 N m) /((5.15x10^42 i kg m^2/s) * (9.33x10^-27 m/kg)*0.398) K_ambient = i 7.07x10^4 kg/(m s) SUMMARY OF COMPUTED VALUES Moment of inertia of earth I = 1.90x10^37 kg m^2 Gravicurrent of earth: i_g_earth = 5.171x10^29 i kg/s Gravimagnetic dipole moment mu_k_earth: mu_k_earth = 5.15x10^42 i kg m^2/s Torque on earth: Q_earth = 1.353x10^21 N m Ambient gravimagnetic field: K_ambient = 7.07x10^4 i kg/(m s) SOME CONSEQUENCES Given EM Lorentz: F = q (v x B) We have the gK equivalent: F_g = m (v x mu_0 * K) Given: m = 1 kg v = 8050 m/s (18,000 mi/hr) Then: F_g = (1 kg i) ((8050 m/s) x (9.33x10^-27 m/kg)(7.07x10^4 i kg/(m s))) F_g = -5.61x10^-21 N = 5.72x10^-22 kgf So the lateral acceleration due to moving at orbital speed through the ambient gravimagnetic field is only 5.72x10^-22 g’s. Insignificant. EARTH GRAVIMAGNETIC FIELD The field intensity in the center a
Re: S. Jones makes claims about 9/11 attack
- Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 8:57 PM Subject: Re: S. Jones makes claims about 9/11 attack Jones Beene wrote: John Coviello wrote: H.V: Do buildings that suffer structural failure collapse so quickly and cleanly? If not, then the events of 9/11 require alternative explanations.. Yes...if the buildings had been designed to be demolished. You switched me with John Coviello. ;-) Yes, but of course it does not *have to be* part of the design, necessarily, but it would be interesting to hear if it was indeed part of it. That may end up being a red herring - and there are too many of those floating around - such that it becomes a big distraction away from the ONE salient fact mentioned by Harry and many others. Steve Jones, a t least in this endeavor, is a giant leap more diligent (and brave) then people are giving him credit for. In the end this was almost a free fall - such as happens in controlled demolition and that cannot be presumed to be the result of pure coincidence, since no other building of this type has EVER gone down from fire, or in a similar fashion. But two other points - one scientific validate that suspicion. A documentary on TV said the WTC twin towers were designed differently from other tall steel boxes. The outer walls formed a square tube-like structure. It may be no other buildings quite like the twin towers has ever suffered a fire. The statement above applies only to WTC-1 and WTC-2, both of which were hit by planes and obviously suffered some structural damage (even if there are questions about if the fires were actually hot enough to melt steel and cause the buildings to fall). However, the statement above does not apply to WTC-7, which was not hit by any planes, was not designed differently from other tall steel boxes (it was just a regular building), and did not have raging fires (even though fire has never brought down a steel framed building anyway). So, what caused WTC-7 to collapse on the afternoon of 9/11/01 remains a myster, and I believe it is fair to entertain alternative explanations. SNIP
Re: S. Jones makes claims about 9/11 attack
John Coviello wrote: - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 8:57 PM Subject: Re: S. Jones makes claims about 9/11 attack Jones Beene wrote: John Coviello wrote: H.V: Do buildings that suffer structural failure collapse so quickly and cleanly? If not, then the events of 9/11 require alternative explanations.. Yes...if the buildings had been designed to be demolished. You switched me with John Coviello. ;-) Yes, but of course it does not *have to be* part of the design, necessarily, but it would be interesting to hear if it was indeed part of it. That may end up being a red herring - and there are too many of those floating around - such that it becomes a big distraction away from the ONE salient fact mentioned by Harry and many others. Steve Jones, a t least in this endeavor, is a giant leap more diligent (and brave) then people are giving him credit for. In the end this was almost a free fall - such as happens in controlled demolition and that cannot be presumed to be the result of pure coincidence, since no other building of this type has EVER gone down from fire, or in a similar fashion. But two other points - one scientific validate that suspicion. A documentary on TV said the WTC twin towers were designed differently from other tall steel boxes. The outer walls formed a square tube-like structure. It may be no other buildings quite like the twin towers has ever suffered a fire. The statement above applies only to WTC-1 and WTC-2, both of which were hit by planes and obviously suffered some structural damage (even if there are questions about if the fires were actually hot enough to melt steel and cause the buildings to fall). Steel has a great reputation, and it always _sounds_ strong (steel belted radials -- almost as good as fiberglass!). But, here's something that may have been mentioned before in this group -- can't recall: On a smaller scale than skyscrapers, where one finds both wood frame and steel frame buildings of roughly similar size and shape, in a good hot fire, and all else being equal, a wood-frame building will typically stand _longer_ than a steel-frame building before collapsing. Wood doesn't melt. Wood beams must burn through from the outside, and retain a lot of their strength until much of the wood has burned away. Steel, on the other hand, heats clear through immediately by conduction, and loses most of its strength long before it actually melts. Cold-forging iron is a lot more difficult than hot-forging, even though the typical blacksmith's forge is a lot cooler than the melting point of iron. The issue of whether the fire was hot enough to _melt_ the steel beams may be another red herring -- it just had to be hot enough to soften them enough so that the already damaged supports for one floor broke. However, the statement above does not apply to WTC-7, which was not hit by any planes, was not designed differently from other tall steel boxes (it was just a regular building), and did not have raging fires (even though fire has never brought down a steel framed building anyway). So, what caused WTC-7 to collapse on the afternoon of 9/11/01 remains a myster, and I believe it is fair to entertain alternative explanations. SNIP
Re: S. Jones makes claims about 9/11 attack
-Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence The issue of whether the fire was hot enough to _melt_ the steel beams may be another red herring -- it just had to be hot enough to soften them enough so that the already damaged supports for one floor broke. The National Institute of Standards and Technology issued their final analysis: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Fina l.pdf or http://tinyurl.com/cft59 stating that the likely cause of the collapse was *both* debris and fire. Most conspiracy videos do not show the collapse of the east penthouse, a structure added to the building after its construction. The penthouse structural failure preceeded the the global collapse of the building by 8.2 seconds. See slide 26 for the failure timeline. Terry ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
RE: Who Killed the EV?
I don't see any need for any conspiracy to kill off electric cars at all. The range is awful, they take time to recharge, the battery life sucks and they are small - especially when compared to the profitable SUV's that US manufacturers produce. They suck. I wondered why car companies bothered to waste money on them in the first place, but I assume that was because of politics Now, that said IF THEY CAN DEVELOP A REALLY GOOD BATTERY, EV's will crush oil powered vehicles, no doubt. Since such batteries don't exist, my question is Why doesn't Detroit build a good diesel hybrid - that has mileage and acceleration - and beat the Japanese? -Original Message- From: John Coviello [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 8:57 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Who Killed the EV? Very interesting. Too bad there is no trailer available on the site (link is dead). There is definitely a conspiracy of some sort surrounding the silent dismissal of the EV. I mean, who wouldn't want a car that costs 1/4 the cost of driving a petroleum powered vehicle and is less costly to maintain as well? People loved their EVs and GM just crushed them anyway. The oil/auto industries, which surely are in collusion at some level, know the EV is the one technology that could kill the whole oil gravy train in short order. I think that is why they are literally giving EVs the cold shoulder. Plug-in hybrids are the first step to full EVs, and even those are getting no support from the auto industry. Plug-in hybrids will reduce oil consumption by 50% to 80%, EVs will once fully implemented reduce oil consumption by 100%. The oil/auto industries know this, is it really suprising that they are crushing EVs instead of developing them? - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 4:00 PM Subject: Who Killed the EV? Soon to a DVD near you: http://www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com/ and the Sundance Festival. Terry ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
CNNMoney.com: Beat High Cost of Gasoline. Forever!
FYI See: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/02/06/8367959/index.htm?cnn=yes or http://tinyurl.com/cvb9s There is a fairly extensive CnnMoney.com article on the claimed advantages of converting to Ethanol. They talk about Brazil's success along with other factors as well. The article discusses the advantages of modifying cars so that they can easily switch between petroleum and ethanol. (That part makes a lot of sense to me.) However, I wonder how much hidden energy may be used in the form of expensive fertilizer just to grow the crops that ultimately make the ethanol. From what I have heard, when those hidden factors are weighed in the sudden panacea suddenly can suddenly evaporate, sometimes actually going into the negative. I'm curious what other Vorts may have to say about this article. Let the debate begin! Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
Re: Who Killed the EV?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: . . . GM's EV-1 electric vehicle is launched in 1997 with great fanfare from California consumers. It was the first perfect car of the modern age, requiring no gas, no oil, no mufflers, and no brake changes (a billion dollar industry unto itself.) Why would there be no brake changes? Electric and hybrid cars have regenerative braking but they also have ordinary brakes as well. I suppose it would be less wear and tear on the brakes but eventually they would need service. - Jed
Re: CNNMoney.com: Beat High Cost of Gasoline. Forever!
On 30 Jan 2006 at 8:52, OrionWorks wrote: FYI See: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/02/06/836795 9/index.htm?cnn=yes or http://tinyurl.com/cvb9s There is a fairly extensive CnnMoney.com article on the claimed advantages of converting to Ethanol. They talk about Brazil's success along with other factors as well. The article discusses the advantages of modifying cars so that they can easily switch between petroleum and ethanol. (That part makes a lot of sense to me.) Here in Brazil you can buy a new car equiped with a FlexPower motor that runs on gasoline AND/OR Ethanol, your choice, no switches to turn. Every major car brand make them: GM, VW, Fiat,... Mark Jordan
Re: CNNMoney.com: Beat High Cost of Gasoline. Forever!
> From: Mark Jordan > >> FYI See: >> http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/02/06/836795 >> 9/index.htm?cnn=yes >> or >> http://tinyurl.com/cvb9s >> >> There is a fairly extensive CnnMoney.com article on the claimed >> advantages of converting to Ethanol. They talk about Brazil's success >> along with other factors as well. The article discusses the advantages >> of modifying cars so that they can easily switch between petroleum and >> ethanol. (That part makes a lot of sense to me.) Here in Brazil you can buy a new car equiped with a "FlexPower" motor that runs on gasoline AND/OR Ethanol, your choice, no switches to turn. Every major car brand make them: GM, VW, Fiat,... Mark Jordan Mark, What's your impression on whether they actually save Brazil energy. It would seem that they most certainly DO. I seem to recall, however, that others on Vortex-l have debated quite convincingly that the opposite could happen when one weighs in the less obvious factors such as the amount energy consumed (often in the guise of imported foreign oil) as fertilizer just to grow the ethanol crops. Never the less, it would seem that Brazil has managed it rather well since I gather they no longer import foreign oil. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
Re: The Horace Hiatus
Horace Heffner wrote: On Jan 21, 2006, at 1:51 PM, Taylor J. Smith wrote: Source: David de Hilster ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ``Dr. Domina Eberle Spencer still has the raw data from the Hafele- Keating experiment (atomic clocks on planes in 1972) which she examined in 1996 and concluded that that data to prove Einstein was fabricated. She is a brilliant mathematician and has agreed to be interviewed on the subject for our documentary film. That should be an interesting film, but I doubt anything substantive would be put on film. I hope she publishes. Without the critical data, it is not possible to reach any conclusions. In fact, even with the data, the only conclusion might be there is a need for more data. Since last posting to this thread, I've read one paper deconstructing the H-K experiment and read a bit more about the topic in general. It appears to me that the H-K experiment was indeed BOGUS. It wasn't supposed to be that way -- the intent of the researchers was apparently pure -- but in the end it suffered from Not Enough Rats syndrome. This problem is common in biology and the social sciences but unusual in a physics experiment. Here's a sketch of how it happens in a biology lab: A researcher whom we'll call Bob wants to determine the effect of diet on the neurotransmitter Poodlecatamousitine. He understands statistics well enough to analyze his results with no difficulty, but is none the less a little shaky on the use of statistics during the experimental design phase (this is all too common, don't say it doesn't happen!). But he _guesses_ that 20 rats in each of his two experimental groups and 20 more in the control group should produce a clear enough result. But rats are expensive, grant money's tight, and he decides he can make do with just 10 rats in each group. But three of the rats get Rat Flue and check out before the end of the experiment, there's an air conditioner failure and two more shuffle off this mortal coil, ALF raiders get several more, and one of the male rats gets pregnant and is disqualified. Two others refuse to eat the special diet and are also disqualified. They get to the end of the experiment, and it's time to gather data. But the only way to get good readings on Poodlecatamousitine levels is to sacrifice the rats in total darkness, by beheading them while they sleep, and then take brain slices (don't laugh; I knew someone who had to do exactly this in a rat experiment). Unfortunately the grad students find this difficult to carry out. One gets bitten and yells, waking up several rats; they're disqualified. Two rats get mixed up in the dark, and so they're out, too. And one of the brain slices turns out to contain almost nothing but human finger tissue, and so it's no good. In the end Bob has data for 4 test rats in group A, 5 in group B, and just three control rats. The large effect he hoped to obtain turns out to be a difference of just 2% in the levels, and it's ... **Not Statistically Significant**. Oops. But this represents months of work, so maybe Bob publishes anyway. Back to the H-K experiment... H-K flew 4 clocks around the world, but it appears that they should have used several times that number. It seems that portable cesium clocks are not the paragons of reliability I had thought they were and the clock drift rates -- and rates of change in the drift rates! -- were erratic and large compared with the effect being measured. All but one of the clocks they used showed large (and obvious) changes in drift rates, and the last clock, which didn't _obviously_ have a large change in drift rate (but may none the less have changed drift rate more than once during the flights), didn't show the Sagnac effect. I don't know if it's possible to do a good stat test on their results but the discussion I read made it sound like their results would not have gotten over the bar had they been properly analyzed. H-K apparently chose to publish anyway, and in fact, they supposedly didn't release their raw data until a very long time after the paper was published. That's always a red flag, of course -- if there's nothing to hide, there's no reason not to release the raw data. In this case it appears to me that the experiment really proved nothing either way except to show that, if we want to test this effect using that method, either better clocks or more clocks are needed, or they need to use much faster aircraft (the magnitude of the predicted effect doesn't change if you go faster, but the noise level would be reduced).
Re: S. Jones makes claims about 9/11 attack
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: On a smaller scale than skyscrapers, where one finds both wood frame and steel frame buildings of roughly similar size and shape, in a good hot fire, and all else being equal, a wood-frame building will typically stand _longer_ than a steel-frame building before collapsing. This was discovered in the 1960s and 70s at the National Bureau of Standards. They sent experts to look at burned warehouses and other buildings, and they constructed a huge laboratory to burn houses and other structures indoors at their Gaithersburg, MD campus. My father worked there at the time and I went out to see it. Based on this research, construction standards were revised and steel is now enclosed in concrete. However, I believe that even now some wooden structures have survived fire better than steel does. When the twin towers were struck by airplanes, leading experts knew right away they would soon collapse the way they did -- straight down. One of these experts try to contact officials in New York to warn them to evacuate the building, but he could not get through. He said the only surprise was that the buildings held up as long as they did. - Jed
Re: CNNMoney.com: Beat High Cost of Gasoline. Forever!
On 30 Jan 2006 at 9:48, OrionWorks wrote: Here in Brazil you can buy a new car equiped with a FlexPower motor that runs on gasoline AND/OR Ethanol, your choice, no switches to turn. Every major car brand make them: GM, VW, Fiat,... Mark Jordan Mark, What's your impression on whether they actually save Brazil energy. It would seem that they most certainly DO. I seem to recall, however, that others on Vortex-l have debated quite convincingly that the opposite could happen when one weighs in the less obvious factors such as the amount energy consumed (often in the guise of imported foreign oil) as fertilizer just to grow the ethanol crops. I have mixed feeling here. The government subsidizes the Ethanol industry to lower the prices. And to the final user the cost/km is almost the same as using gasoline. Sometimes a bit higher. Ten years ago the government reduced the Ethanol industry subsidy and the price at the pump got very high, making the Ethanol cars almost disappear due to the cost/km. So they decided to mix Ethanol to the gasoline. Now our gasoline is almost 25% Ethanol. The car industry had to make engine adjustments to run with the new fuel. Never the less, it would seem that Brazil has managed it rather well since I gather they no longer import foreign oil. I'm not completelly sure about that, but I think we import foreign oil and export, too. Mark Jordan
RE: Who Killed the EV?
Your Startrek Syndrome evidence changes nothing. Electric cars suck. Allow me to explain: You have a small, vocal group of enthusiasts who protest loudly about some product they think is wonderful ( Please don't cancel Startrek/Buffy!) A large company realizes that the product is a joke that will bring them no real profit in a mass market, despite the loud screams of fixated Fanatics. Cold weather makes electric cars even worse. The public wants wasteful, gas sucking monster SUV's , not dinky, 75 mile range, recharge - over night Toys. The lack of a Really Good Battery killed electric cars and no conspiracy is necessary. Find a miracle battery - and , yes, YOU WILL KILL THE OIL COMPANIES. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 10:05 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Who Killed the EV? -Original Message- From: Zell, Chris I wondered why car companies bothered to waste money on them in the first place, but I assume that was because of politics See the summary below. Most owners of the EV-1 loved the vehicle. http://dontcrush.com/ Terry It was among the fastest, m Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Why Good Cars Get Crushed
A True story: I was visiting a local junkyard several years ago and noticed a number of late model Nissan vans in the lot. I asked how much they were and was told Not for sale. It seems that a few of this model had engine fires and Nissan couldn't find an immediate reason why, so they paid people off and destroyed them. Car companies do this to avoid liability and warranties and hassles. It's just easier and simpler. You'll also notice that perfectly good useable buildings are invariably torn down to build new buildings ( Walmart comes to mind, in my locale). It's just simpler and quicker. Confront a major car company with a group of emotional electric car fanatics - who will bother and annoy them and claim warranties and demand service and demand parts supplies for years to come ... And what happens? They crush the vehicles.
Re: Who Killed the EV?
Jed Rothwell wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: . . . GM's EV-1 electric vehicle is launched in 1997 with great fanfare from California consumers. It was the first perfect car of the modern age, requiring no gas, no oil, no mufflers, and no brake changes (a billion dollar industry unto itself.) Why would there be no brake changes? Electric and hybrid cars have regenerative braking but they also have ordinary brakes as well. I suppose it would be less wear and tear on the brakes but eventually they would need service. - Jed Do they mean the braking system did not use friction? A frictionless breaking system based on electromagnetic forces would be possible but it would not be practical since it would consume electrical energy rather than generate it. Harry
RE: Who Killed the EV?
Zell, Chris wrote: Cold weather makes electric cars even worse. The public wants wasteful, gas sucking monster SUV's , not dinky, 75 mile range, recharge - over night Toys. I think you are wrong about that. Millions of people would love to have an electric car with a 75-mile range if it costs about as much as a comparable gasoline model. I would love to have one! I seldom drive the Geo Metro more than 10 miles per day, and it does not go over 55 mph (except maybe downhill). (My wife drives the Prius.) Hundreds of millions of people may prefer gasoline vehicles, but a vehicle with a 75-mile range would be a strong niche product with more than enough people to support profitable production. A lot stronger than motorcycles, I think. Clayton Christensen wrote an interesting chapter about this in the book The Innovator's Dilemma. He said, among other things, that parents with teenage children might want to buy underpowered limited range electric cars precisely because they cannot go 120 mph or 100 miles away from home. Most American families already have a gasoline car, so this would be a second car for urban dwellers. As such, it is a lot more practical, safer and faster than a bicycle, motorcycle or taxicab. Millions of people live in cities after all. These cars have advantages besides eco-friendliness. As noted in the article they cost less to run and to maintain. They are simple and long-lasting. Traditional lead acid batteries may not last long but they can be recycled. If GM had engineered and marketed their EV properly they would be selling 100,000 a year by now. However, the hybrid gasoline car makes pure EVs obsolete, and the plug-in hybrid makes all other vehicles obsolete and not worth considering -- and that includes ethanol fueled vehicles. The only reasonable alternative to a gasoline plug-in hybrid is a diesel plug-in hybrid. - Jed
Re: The Horace Hiatus
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: [ snip stuff on Sagnac effect] As I mentioned previously, this can be demonstrated without the use of any clocks, and in fact it is demonstrated all the time. Current generation inertial navigation systems use ring-laser gyroscopes which only work as a result of this effect. In a ring-laser gyro the signal is a a light pulse carried in a fiber optic cable, and it travels at roughly 3/4 C relative to the rim of the disk. The signal speed is the same in both directions, relative to the disk (signal speed on a moving body is trivial to measure, and if it weren't invariant with respect to the motion, moving computers would not work). The arrival time difference is measured by looking at interference fringe shifts between the counter-traversing pulses, and it's used to determine the rate at which the disk is turning, which datum is used by the navigation system. Well, well. I did a little more reading on this, and the thing I'm describing here is not a ring-laser gyroscope at all. A ring-laser gyro is a very weird beast which apparently uses a laser tube in the shape of a ring, and uses some very strange properties of standing waves in order to operate. Quite different from this. The thing I was describing is apparently called an IFOG, which stands for Interferometric Fiber-Optic Gyro. Real devices use very long fiber optic coils, with perhaps 1000 turns in the coil; 1000 turns results in 1000x the phase change which would result from a single loop.
Re: Who Killed the EV?
Harry Veeder wrote: Why would there be no brake changes? Electric and hybrid cars have regenerative braking but they also have ordinary brakes as well. Do they mean the braking system did not use friction? No, I mean they use the electric motor as a generator, and this puts a load on the wheels. The electric power it generates is stored in the battery. This slows the car down, but to stop rapidly the car also needs ordinary brakes. (I suppose it also needs them in case the motor fails.) A frictionless breaking system based on electromagnetic forces would be possible but it would not be practical since it would consume electrical energy rather than generate it. As far as I know it would have to generate electricity. The energy has to go somewhere. With ordinary brakes, all of the energy turns into waste heat. I saw a dramatic demonstration of that the other day driving behind a beat-up bread delivery truck down a steep mountain in Virginia. By the time we reached the valley, stinking white smoke was pouring out of the brakes. The driver did not even slow down. I get a feeling he makes that delivery every day. One of these days he is not going to stop at end of the road. - Jed
Re: Who Killed the EV?
Jed Rothwell wrote: Zell, Chris wrote: Cold weather makes electric cars even worse. The public wants wasteful, gas sucking monster SUV's , not dinky, 75 mile range, recharge - over night Toys. I think you are wrong about that. Millions of people would love to have an electric car with a 75-mile range if it costs about as much as a comparable gasoline model. I would love to have one! I seldom drive the Geo Metro more than 10 miles per day, and it does not go over 55 mph (except maybe downhill). (My wife drives the Prius.) Hundreds of millions of people may prefer gasoline vehicles, but a vehicle with a 75-mile range would be a strong niche product with more than enough people to support profitable production. A lot stronger than motorcycles, I think. One reason GM is in such trouble is that they can't make money selling niche products. They can't make money on a model unless they sell a major giant-sized boatload of them (I don't recall the actual numbers off hand unfortunately). If Nissan (which also has its problems) had been selling them they might have thought the sales numbers were great, but Nissan has a long history of selling into niche markets in Japan. A number of Japanese manufacturers have figured out how to sell low-volume models at a profit -- but not GM. Clayton Christensen wrote an interesting chapter about this in the book The Innovator's Dilemma. He said, among other things, that parents with teenage children might want to buy underpowered limited range electric cars precisely because they cannot go 120 mph or 100 miles away from home. Most American families already have a gasoline car, so this would be a second car for urban dwellers. As such, it is a lot more practical, safer and faster than a bicycle, motorcycle or taxicab. Millions of people live in cities after all. These cars have advantages besides eco-friendliness. As noted in the article they cost less to run and to maintain. They are simple and long-lasting. Traditional lead acid batteries may not last long but they can be recycled. If GM had engineered and marketed their EV properly they would be selling 100,000 a year by now. And maybe that would be enough for GM to make an adequate profit on them, or maybe it wouldn't. The folks who make the Excalibur would faint at the thought of such numbers, and before being bought by Ford I dare say Mazda would have been happy with quantities like that too. But the Elephant of Michigan needs real volume to be happy with a model. However, the hybrid gasoline car makes pure EVs obsolete, and the plug-in hybrid makes all other vehicles obsolete and not worth considering -- and that includes ethanol fueled vehicles. The only reasonable alternative to a gasoline plug-in hybrid is a diesel plug-in hybrid. Is this really true? A pure EV car would be lighter, simpler, and cheaper than a hybrid. The only place it falls down on is range. For decades people have been saying there's a niche market there for cheap and efficient range-limited vehicles, and I don't see how the presence of hybrids changes that. But regardless, General Motors won't be one of the companies making them.
Re: Who Killed the EV?
-Original Message- From: Harry Veeder Do they mean the braking system did not use friction? It used both: disc in front, electric in rear. Here are the EV-1 specs: http://www.evchargernews.com/CD-A/gm_ev1_web_site/specs/specs_specs_top.h tm or http://tinyurl.com/ckaju ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: The Horace Hiatus
-Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence H-K flew 4 clocks around the world, but it appears that they should have used several times that number. Interesting thing is, no atomic clock will ever be perfect although the Bhor model would lead one to believe it could be. The ironic thing is that it is the bound electron's interaction with virtual particles (aka vacuum, aether, Beta-atm) which is the reason according to Nobel Laureate Robert B. Laughlin: http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1998/laughlin-autobio.html (I can't seem to find the specific quote at the moment.) Terry ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
The Coming Rebirth of the EV
Progress in our labs continues and suggests that with sufficient financial support, now a high probability, we will meet the goal of a 1kW Magnetic Power Module(tm) pre-manufacturing prototype by the end of this year. The most likely unit is a transformer conversion. If this proves practical, as now seems to me a good bet, it will be about the size and weight of a large microwave oven. While the target market for such generators is homes, etc., -- removing the need for a plug-in hybrid to plug-in should be possible in about a year. The wall socket in projected Prius conversions of this type provides 1 kW. That provides 60 miles of driving using an augmented battery pack. As a harbinger of the future, we will modify a plug-in hybrid so that the recharge comes from the Module. A few sheets on our website: www.magneticpowerinc.com may prove of interest. A year ago this month, we filed a Provisional Patent Application on a very different Module. The Utility Patent Application has now been filed on this invention. If it performs as anticipated from a rough test on a very small prototype, it may provide 50 kW in the same space as the engine of a Prius. By the end of next year perhaps we can replace a hybrid engine and demonstrate the potential for all new cars produced following 2010 to be electric. They will have no need to recharge conventionally. Burning fossil fuel may never have been necessary. See the Chronology in the first item on the website for an explanation. The surprisingly rapid melting of the permafrost indicates a planetary emergency is at hand. Replacing all power systems that produce heat as rapidly as is possible may prove necessary for human survival. Mark
RE: Who Killed the EV?
-Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 11:57 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Who Killed the EV? Jed Rothwell wrote: Zell, Chris wrote: Cold weather makes electric cars even worse. The public wants wasteful, gas sucking monster SUV's , not dinky, 75 mile range, recharge - over night Toys. US car manufacturers can't make money on small cars - worse yet, GM is having trouble making money on any vehicle sold. Much of their profit has been made on the financing arm. If you really think that millions want one of these toys, then successful niche builders like the Japanese should be making them. If they aren't, then they likely have concluded it's a bad deal. Maybe Subaru will come out with a lithium based one in 2010, but we'll see. It's the battery - that's the key. Everything else is in place for an explosion of electric vehicles to emerge IF you can find a Really Good Battery. In summary, there are too many sinister explanations for things that are easily explained by pedestrian economics. Alternative energy has never gotten mainstream because businesses know that their plans could collapse anytime the Saudis ( the swing producers) OPEN UP A VALVE and pump $20 a barrel oil. ..but that may soon change ( Thank God)
RE: Who Killed the EV?
Zell, Chris wrote: If you really think that millions want one of these toys, then successful niche builders like the Japanese should be making them. Yes. I think millions want them and the Japanese should be making them. But up until this year, they did not think so! Now they are introducing some pure EVs. They should sell in Japan, China and S. E. Asia, but I doubt they can compete with hybrids in North America. Our driving distances are too long. Alternative energy has never gotten mainstream because businesses know that their plans could collapse anytime the Saudis ( the swing producers) OPEN UP A VALVE and pump $20 a barrel oil. That's true, but it is no longer the case. Production is probably maxed out. - Jed
Re: Who Killed the EV?
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: The only reasonable alternative to a gasoline plug-in hybrid is a diesel plug-in hybrid. Is this really true? A pure EV car would be lighter, simpler, and cheaper than a hybrid. The only place it falls down on is range. I could be wrong, but that is my gut feeling, having driven a hybrid. I as told Chris Zell, an EV might work in Japan or China, but not the U.S. Here are some reasons. People do drive long distances in the US. Plus, even if you normally drive only short distances, there are bound to be times when you need to go farther. Suppose you drive 30 miles on Monday and you plan to drive 40 on Tuesday but you forget to plug the thing in overnight. Or suppose you are moving to another town, or you have a temporary job assignment that calls for a much longer commute than normal. Or your gasoline car is in the shop. Hybrids seem to have a head start. I expect the premium for the hybrid ICE motor is smaller than it was at first, and it will continue to decrease. A pure EV requires many more batteries which are expensive. (A plug-in hybrid will not need as many batteries as a pure EV.) Once the technology comes along that answers a need, or fills a niche market, it becomes more difficult for a second technology to displace it, even when the second one has some advantages. For decades people have been saying there's a niche market there for cheap and efficient range-limited vehicles, and I don't see how the presence of hybrids changes that. Well, hybrids are reasonably cheap and getting cheaper, and they are efficient. The plug-in variety will have nearly every advantage of the EV. The only added complexity in them will be the ICE and the gas tank. The transmission does not seem expensive, and it is rugged and simple. The software used to control this complex combination of motors and transmission probably cost hundreds of millions of dollars to develop, but it's paid for, and I doubt the cost comes to much per vehicle. In other words, if hybrids did not exist yet and you had to create one from scratch at the same time others were developing EV, it would be more difficult to compete, but they have bloomed in the absence of EVs. They have the advantages of contingency and incumbency as Gould put it. (See my book, chapter 7, section 2.) - Jed
Re: S. Jones makes claims about 9/11 attack
RC Macaulay wrote: Hi Jones, Interesting that we have never heard from the original team of structural engineers that designed and supervised construction of the Towers. We certainly have! The chief designer gave a presentation on it shortly after the collapse. IIRC, he explained exactly what had happened, how it came down, how the floors pancaked once one of them let go, and said that it had been built to withstand _almost_ what it was subjected to but that the fully-fueled aircraft which hit it where larger than what it could handle. As I recall, he was said to have finished by sobbing, I wish they'd stayed up a little longer! I didn't see it, I just read excerpts after the fact. Don't recall where it was or who the live audience was.
RE: Who Killed the EV?
From: Jed Rothwell Zell, Chris wrote: Cold weather makes electric cars even worse. The public wants wasteful, gas sucking monster SUV's , not dinky, 75 mile range, recharge - over night Toys. I think you are wrong about that. Millions of people would love to have an electric car with a 75-mile range if it costs about as much as a comparable gasoline model. I would love to have one! I seldom drive the Geo Metro more than 10 miles per day, and it does not go over 55 mph (except maybe downhill). (My wife drives the Prius.) Hundreds of millions of people may prefer gasoline vehicles, but a vehicle with a 75-mile range would be a strong niche product with more than enough people to support profitable production. A lot stronger than motorcycles, I think. Clayton Christensen wrote an interesting chapter about this in the book The Innovator's Dilemma. He said, among other things, that parents with teenage children might want to buy underpowered limited range electric cars precisely because they cannot go 120 mph or 100 miles away from home. Most American families already have a gasoline car, so this would be a second car for urban dwellers. As such, it is a lot more practical, safer and faster than a bicycle, motorcycle or taxicab. Millions of people live in cities after all. These cars have advantages besides eco-friendliness. As noted in the article they cost less to run and to maintain. They are simple and long-lasting. Traditional lead acid batteries may not last long but they can be recycled. If GM had engineered and marketed their EV properly they would be selling 100,000 a year by now. However, the hybrid gasoline car makes pure EVs obsolete, and the plug-in hybrid makes all other vehicles obsolete and not worth considering -- and that includes ethanol fueled vehicles. The only reasonable alternative to a gasoline plug-in hybrid is a diesel plug-in hybrid. - Jed I agree with much of what Jed has to say on this topic. In the meantime I'm also crossing my fingers that MPI may be able to pull a magic rabbit or two out of the hat. But for now, based on what is selling in showrooms today, it seems to me that the biggest problem may have more to do with the fact that autos are often considered strong virility symbols, especially when testosterone is added into the equation. Therefore, the bigger and stronger my auto is... I think it would likely require take a very long and protracted reeducation program to make major portions of a testosterone-handicapped society rethink its absurd love affair with the gas guzzler. As much as they may hate the cost of rising gas, feeling neutered while puttering around in a wimpy EV is even more terrifying. If magnetic power modules don't pan out as quickly as we hope they might, another dilemma may turn out to be the fact that many one-car owners may be forced to purchase two cars - a short range and a long ranger. The latter, obviously being more of a gas hog. It's true for me that approximately 90% of my driving can be accomplished well within a 5 or 10 mile range. Another 5% in perhaps 30 - 40 miles, which is still well within the range of EVs on the market today. I suspect less than 5% of my driving requires getting on the interstate and traveling from Madison to Chicago or Milwaukee. It make me wonder if it might actually turn out to be more economical to simply RENT a long-ranger for those planned inter-city trips. Rent one for the weekend trip, or whatever. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
RE: Who Killed the EV?
-Original Message- From: OrionWorks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 3:17 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Who Killed the EV? From: Jed Rothwell Zell, Chris wrote: Cold weather makes electric cars even worse. The public wants wasteful, gas sucking monster SUV's , not dinky, 75 mile range, recharge - over night Toys. Testosterone related vehicles? Whenever my wife sees some old guy in a hot sports car, she yells Sorry about your penis! GM should develop a diesel hybrid quickly. You would get the fuel economy of the diesel together with decent acceleration provided by batteries or ultracaps. Sounds win-win especially if we start producing biodiesel commercially. The Indonesians are seriously looking at Palm oil. If I was an oil company conspirator, I would help fund every whining, ceaselessly complaining enviro-group around ( but isn't that most of them?) Wind turbines kill birds, biodiesel starves the poor, new power plants ( and everything else) causes cancer and if that fails, just do the NIMBY mantra. It's amazing that the human race has come this far.
Re: Who Killed the EV?
Jed Rothwell wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: Why would there be no brake changes? Electric and hybrid cars have regenerative braking but they also have ordinary brakes as well. Do they mean the braking system did not use friction? No, I mean they use the electric motor as a generator, and this puts a load on the wheels. The electric power it generates is stored in the battery. This slows the car down, but to stop rapidly the car also needs ordinary brakes. (I suppose it also needs them in case the motor fails.) So the life of the break pads is greatly extended? A frictionless breaking system based on electromagnetic forces would be possible but it would not be practical since it would consume electrical energy rather than generate it. As far as I know it would have to generate electricity. The energy has to go somewhere. With ordinary brakes, all of the energy turns into waste heat. I saw a dramatic demonstration of that the other day driving behind a beat-up bread delivery truck down a steep mountain in Virginia. By the time we reached the valley, stinking white smoke was pouring out of the brakes. The driver did not even slow down. I get a feeling he makes that delivery every day. One of these days he is not going to stop at end of the road. - Jed Yes you are right. With strong enough magnets it might even be possible to do away with friction completely, while the separation of opposing magnetic poles could be controlled hydraulically. Harry
Re: The Coming Rebirth of the EV
On Jan 30, 2006, at 9:32 AM, Mark Goldes wrote: A few sheets on our website: www.magneticpowerinc.com may prove of interest. In http://magneticpowerinc.com/update1.html you say: 2005 Over- unity is achieved in a rotary system. It opens a path to a future self-powered Demonstration Device. Outside validation is invited. The process of verification begins. Is any outside source doing a validation yet? Horace Heffner
Re: Who Killed the EV?
Harry Veeder wrote: So the life of the break pads is greatly extended? That's my guess, as I said in the first message. Not only does it save money, it reduces pollution from dust and fragments of brake pads along highways and roads. Summarizing my feelings about a typical U.S. EV customer, I think most people in the U.S. would be willing to pay an extra $3,000 for a vehicle with a 600 mile range. Even rabid environmentalists like me appreciate the convenience of having the ICE when we need it, so we would pay extra for a plug-in hybrid rather than a pure EV. I would not know about Europe. Regarding diesel versus gasoline plug-in hybrids, the difference is not worth worrying about. For the average commuter with a plug-in hybrid, the annual cost of fuel would be trivial, even if gasoline hits $5 per gallon. The diesel would save you maybe $20 a year. With an ordinary hybrid, $5 gasoline it would start to hurt. - Jed
Re: S. Jones makes claims about 9/11 attack
Harry Veeder wrote: I doubt the Empire State Building would have collapsed if a jet liner crashed into it. The Pentagon was built around the same time as the Empire State Building, using similar materials and techniques. It shattered when the airplane smashed into it. I believe experts have said the Empire State Building would have fallen sooner and more catastrophically than the Twin Towers did. The Empire State Building was struck by an airplane in 1945, but it was a B-25 bomber, which was far smaller than today's commercial jetliners. - Jed
Re: S. Jones makes claims about 9/11 attack
I doubt the Empire State Building would have collapsed if a jet liner crashed into it. If the twin towers were built like clipper ships, the Empire State building was built like a battle ship. Harry Jed Rothwell wrote: Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: We certainly have! The chief designer gave a presentation on it shortly after the collapse. IIRC, he explained exactly what had happened, how it came down, how the floors pancaked . . . As I recall, he was said to have finished by sobbing, I wish they'd stayed up a little longer! I think I remember seeing something like that on the Discovery Channel. Several experts were interviewed. The guy I recall, who said he tried to contact the authorities in New York, was a leading British structural engineer. In other words, many different experts independently predicted the collapse before it occurred, and many others examined the steel and other components from the building to confirm the sequence of events. There were no surprises and no major unanswered questions. There is no need -- or room -- for the kinds of doubts and conspiracy theories and urban myths that Jones is peddling. To paraphrase G. K. Chesterton, Jones shows that when a man stops believing in experiments, he will believe in anything. Several of the experts interviewed said they were amazed the buildings stayed up as long as they did, and it was a credit to the designers. They said they did not think any other building then standing would have held up better. In light of these events, some skyscrapers built after 9/11 have been reinforced more, and they might survive better. The buildings were designed to withstand an accidental impact from the largest airplanes in service when they were built. Unfortunately, airplanes are now bigger, and they carry more fuel. - Jed
Re: Who Killed the EV?
If room temperature superconductors can be made they would also boost the performance of electric vehicles. If I remember correctly, a Time magazine cover from around '86 or '87 showed an artist's rendering of a futuristic electric vehicle as one of the promises of high temperature superconductors. Harry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder Do they mean the braking system did not use friction? It used both: disc in front, electric in rear. Here are the EV-1 specs: http://www.evchargernews.com/CD-A/gm_ev1_web_site/specs/specs_specs_top.h tm or http://tinyurl.com/ckaju ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: S. Jones makes claims about 9/11 attack
I still doubt it. ;-) Harry Jed Rothwell wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: I doubt the Empire State Building would have collapsed if a jet liner crashed into it. The Pentagon was built around the same time as the Empire State Building, using similar materials and techniques. It shattered when the airplane smashed into it. I believe experts have said the Empire State Building would have fallen sooner and more catastrophically than the Twin Towers did. The Empire State Building was struck by an airplane in 1945, but it was a B-25 bomber, which was far smaller than today's commercial jetliners. - Jed
Re: Who Killed the EV?
...and here it is from May 11, 1987: http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,1101870511,00.html Harry Harry Veeder wrote: If I remember correctly, a Time magazine cover from around '86 or '87 showed an artist's rendering of a futuristic electric vehicle as one of the promises of high temperature superconductors. Harry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder Do they mean the braking system did not use friction? It used both: disc in front, electric in rear. Here are the EV-1 specs: http://www.evchargernews.com/CD-A/gm_ev1_web_site/specs/specs_specs_top.h tm or http://tinyurl.com/ckaju
Re: Room Temperature Superconductors and EVs
Harry, They can be made, but not yet in wire form. Thin films containing Ultraconductors 1 or 2 microns in diameter (1/50th the diameter of a human hair) can always carry 50 Amperes. The Ultraconductors run through the film in the thin direction, (i.e. normal to the film). Wire is 3 years and $18 million in front of us. Once available as wire, electron flywheels can begin to replace batteries. Ultraconducting Magnetic Energy Storage systems are expected to prove practical. Electric motors made with Ultraconducting wire can be much smaller and lighter, and may require no iron. Alll plastic motors may therefore prove practical. Superconducting motors require no iron. We suspect the same will be true of Ultraconductors. Mark From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Who Killed the EV? Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 18:29:14 -0500 If room temperature superconductors can be made they would also boost the performance of electric vehicles. If I remember correctly, a Time magazine cover from around '86 or '87 showed an artist's rendering of a futuristic electric vehicle as one of the promises of high temperature superconductors. Harry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder Do they mean the braking system did not use friction? It used both: disc in front, electric in rear. Here are the EV-1 specs: http://www.evchargernews.com/CD-A/gm_ev1_web_site/specs/specs_specs_top.h tm or http://tinyurl.com/ckaju ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: Who Killed the EV?
Original Message - From: Zell, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 9:37 AM Subject: RE: Who Killed the EV? I don't see any need for any conspiracy to kill off electric cars at all. The range is awful, they take time to recharge, the battery life sucks and they are small - especially when compared to the profitable SUV's that US manufacturers produce. They suck. It's a chicken and egg thing. Sure, there isn't much demand for electric vehicles at the moment. But that is mainly because the auto companies have no interest in developing them or marketing them. People just don't know about EVs and their advantages, especially for people who don't drive very far. I'm sure with gasoline prices more than double from where they stood when the EV as introduced in 1997, a lot more people would be interested in EVs that cost only 1/4 to operate than petrol cars. The auto companies certainly aren't showing any interest in developing EVs. Sure there are range limitations and other issues. But how they going to improve the technology when no development effort is put into improving it? A natural step towards EVs would be plug-in hybrids. There is no reason why plug-in hybrids couldn't be used to provide short driving ranges on electricity and longer driving ranges on gasoline. As battery technology improves, such as longer life and faster charge lithium-ion batteries, plug-in hybrids can slowly by shifted more towards batteries and less towards petroleum. I think the disinterest is a natural business inclination by auto/oil companies not to invest in and promote technologies that would hurt them in the long run. They know the sucessful introduction of plug-in hybrids and EVs would hurt their industries terribly. A lot less cars would require maintence and spare parts and perhaps would last longer with electric engines. Oil would esstentially cease to be used for automotive purposes, and would become a niche commodity used for lubricants and petrochemicals.
Re: Who Killed the EV?
- Original Message - From: Zell, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 2:02 PM Subject: RE: Who Killed the EV? In summary, there are too many sinister explanations for things that are easily explained by pedestrian economics. Alternative energy has never gotten mainstream because businesses know that their plans could collapse anytime the Saudis ( the swing producers) OPEN UP A VALVE and pump $20 a barrel oil. ..but that may soon change ( Thank God) That day is changing very quickly as we speak. Many oil analysts said oil was heading quickly back to $35 a barrel last year. They couldn't have been more wrong. The fact is oil demand is oustripping supply and the easiest way to see that reality is the fact that the price of a barrel of oil keeps rising: pedestrian economics. Supply/Demand. I agree that alternative energy has been hurt by cheap oil and the government's efforts to keep oil cheap and plentiful by protecting the oil trade militarily has helped skew the markets in oil's favor and hurt alternative energy. That is not pedestrian economics, that is called government meddling and social engineering. Well, now even the government can't keep the price of oil down where they and industry want's it, so people are going to start taking alternative more seriously. I'm sure many people who drive around town would love to have the option of doing so for 1/4 the cost in an electric vehicle (EV) if only that option were available.
Re: Who Killed the EV?
- Original Message - From: Zell, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 11:04 AM Subject: RE: Who Killed the EV? Cold weather makes electric cars even worse. The public wants wasteful, gas sucking monster SUV's , not dinky, 75 mile range, recharge - over night Toys. The lack of a Really Good Battery killed electric cars and no conspiracy is necessary. Find a miracle battery - and , yes, YOU WILL KILL THE OIL COMPANIES. That miracle battery is on it's way finally! Lithium ion batteries have sufficient power densities to deliver 300 mile per charge and can actually recharge in 5 to 10 minutes. You know what that means? People can pull in and recharge their EVs on the go, just like filling up the old gas tank. That day is coming and it will kill oil when people realize how cheap electricity is in comparisson. When the EV-1 was introduced in 1997, wholesale gasoline was trading at 50 cents a gallon, retailing for around $1.00. Now, wholesale gasoline is trading at $1.80 a gallon, retailing for around $2.30. See: http://charts3.barchart.com/chart.asp?vol=Yjav=advgrid=Ydivd=Yorg=stksym=HUH6data=Hcode=BSTKevnt=adv Oh yes, economics are on the side of development of better EVs, if only there were auto companies willing to show the way. Japan probably hasn't led the way to EVs because electricity costs about 3 to 4 times as much as electricity in the U.S., around 28 cents per kWH in Japan. That gives the Japanese no incentive to develop an EV. A small indy American autocompany will probably bring the first commercially available generation of EVs to market, especially if gasoline keeps getting more expensive.
OT Fact stranger than fiction?
Another missive from Harry, who is hiding out in some S. American country... The Lone Gunmen is/was the name of a TV pilot episode, conceived and shot in 2000 and aired six months before the tragic events of Sept. 11, 2001 which involved the hijacking of a commercial airliner with the intent of crashing it into the World Trade Center. You can order the DVD online. Here is more detail: http://killtown.911review.org/lonegunmen.html Although the episode was centered on hi-tech instead of suicide, the eerie coincidence sent shockwaves through cast and roducers - mostly of X-files extraction. so nobody accused them of being the terrorists link to the weak underbelly of American complacency. I'll never forget that, says the producer That was such a disturbing thing. It was very upsetting. As I say in the DVD, you write something like that, and you assume that if you can think of it, being a Hollywood writer, then somebody in the government has thought about it already ... or had they? Speaking of 9/11 coincidence - in this case, a 30 year-old one: there is one Timothy McNiven. Tim is a 30-year U.S. Defense Department operative, who says he is still under contract with the government. Why he hasn't been fired yet is anybody's guess. Maybe they can keep him from going on the full-time lecture circuit this way. He has been openly preaching to anyone who will listen that his military unit in 1976 devised a mock terrorist attack of the Twin Towers almost exactly like what occurred on 9/11. He claims his unit was created the perfect terrorist plan for the times using commercial airliners as weapons and the then 3 year old Twin Towers as their target. It was the most expensive building ever built. They even suggested that the terrorist villains would use boxcutters. The study, commissioned to C-Battery 2/81st Field Artillery, U.S. Army, stationed in Strassburg, Germany in 1976, specifically devised the scenario of the Twin Towers being leveled by Middle Eastern terrorists. This was a CIA project with congressional approval, according to McNiven. I guess it should surprise no one to learn the identity of the head of CIA at that time, not to mention the Secretary of Defense... G Curiously ... artist/photog Richard Avedon has a new offering of fine photos out just now, entitled: Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, Washington D.C., May 7, 1976 but speaking of the Mayberry Machiavellians, here is a Trifecta that you probably don't know about. A single company provided top level security at the World Trade Center, Washington D.C.'s Dulles International Airport, and to both United Airlines and American Airlines between 1995 and 2001. Hmm... and this private company whose records are not open to full public disclosure, was backed by another private Kuwaiti-American investment firm, and with hidden records three layers deep in the Mid-East, but a clever investigative journalist has learned the name of the main kingpin for its US activities, including all of this (so-called) security. More like insecurity if you are related to any of the victims. Marvin P. Bush, younger brother of President George W. Bush, was director and principal US liaison in the company for seven years from 1993 to 2000, when most of the work on the big projects was done. But none of the White House responses to 9/11 have publicly disclosed the company's part in providing security to any of the named facilities. Marvin wisely got out of the arrangement a few months before 9/11. Probably just a lucky coincidence for him G Public records indicate that the firm, formerly named Securacom, had Bush on its board of directors but that is all they are required to divulge. The firm, which is now named Stratesec, Inc., is located in Sterling, Va., a D.C. suburb, and emphasizes federal clients. Marvin Bush is no longer on the board and refuses to be interviewed. The American Stock Exchange delisted Stratesec's stock in October 2002. Believe it or not, this foreign financed security firm - Securacom also had a exclusive contract to provide security at the top secret Los Alamos National Laboratories ! one might opine that this lab is a bit notorious for its numerous security breaches but who woulda guessed a foreign-backed security firm could have gotten that contract? According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center up to the day the buildings fell down. Yet instead of being investigated, the company and companies involved with it have benefited from legislation pushed by the White House and rubber-stamped by Congress. Stratesec, its backer KuwAm, and their corporate officers stand to benefit from limitations on liability and national-security protections from investigation provided in bills since 9/11. Un-frigging-believable... Signed, Harry Tuttle - Ductwork engineer and aspiring
Re: Who Killed the EV?
John Coviello writes: Japan probably hasn't led the way to EVs because electricity costs about 3 to 4 times as much as electricity in the U.S., around 28 cents per kWH in Japan. Yes, but gasoline costs $5 per gallon, so it works out roughly the same. Japanese companies have announced electric cars will be on the market this year and next. It was featured in the national news in December. The cars are small but not tiny, like some European ones. They are the size of many urban Japanese cars. I do not recall the range but it sounded reasonable; 100 km or more. The Japanese and Chinese governments see the writing on the wall. They understand that oil supplies have peaked, and they must take action. They are not like the U.S. government, with its head in the sand. - Jed
Re: Ambient Gravimagnetic Field and the Earth Field
-Original Message- From: Horace Heffner HERE'S THE AMAZING THING: the ambient gravimagnetic flux density is about 2 orders of magnitude larger than the Earth?s gravimagnetic flux. density Dr. Ning Li said the same. However, I think it was much more than 2 orders. I'lll send you her unpublished paper. Terry ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: Room Temperature Superconductors and EVs
Much as I'd like to have some ultraconductor wire to play with, I'm not convinced that Ultrqaconducting Magnetic Energy Storage will replace batteries. Magnetic fields create a pressure equal to the energy density- and therefore require a strong (read heavy and expensive) mechanical container. Mark Goldes wrote: Harry, They can be made, but not yet in wire form. Thin films containing Ultraconductors 1 or 2 microns in diameter (1/50th the diameter of a human hair) can always carry 50 Amperes. The Ultraconductors run through the film in the thin direction, (i.e. normal to the film). Wire is 3 years and $18 million in front of us. Once available as wire, electron flywheels can begin to replace batteries. Ultraconducting Magnetic Energy Storage systems are expected to prove practical. Electric motors made with Ultraconducting wire can be much smaller and lighter, and may require no iron. Alll plastic motors may therefore prove practical. Superconducting motors require no iron. We suspect the same will be true of Ultraconductors. Mark From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Who Killed the EV? Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 18:29:14 -0500 If room temperature superconductors can be made they would also boost the performance of electric vehicles. If I remember correctly, a Time magazine cover from around '86 or '87 showed an artist's rendering of a futuristic electric vehicle as one of the promises of high temperature superconductors. Harry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder Do they mean the braking system did not use friction? It used both: disc in front, electric in rear. Here are the EV-1 specs: http://www.evchargernews.com/CD-A/gm_ev1_web_site/specs/specs_specs_top.h tm or http://tinyurl.com/ckaju ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Are Big Oil Conspiracies Really Off-Base?
ExxonMobil just reported record quarterly profits, over $10 Billion just this quarter. Has there ever been a business in the history of mankind that has even come close to the profits that the oil business has enjoyed, especially in recent years? Does anyone really need a further explanationfor why the U.S. government lavishes the oil industry with approximately $100 Billion in military protection each year and gives energy conservation and alternative energy so little attention and funding? Oil is king of theeconomic world.The U.S. government knows the deal with peak oil, probably better thananyone. It is the main reason we are in Iraq at the moment. Oil plays thecentral role of our foreign policy, especially since Communism fell. Remember how Dick Chenney said in 2001 that energy efficiency did notmatter? I just saw him last week explaining on network television that the reason our economy is not in recession due to the current high oil prices isbecause we use oil twice as efficiently as we did in 1980 when we had a serious economic recession due to oil. Talk about speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Slick Dick!For those out there who belittle big oil conspiracy theories as poppycock, I suggest you investigate the diamond trade. Diamonds would be essentially worthless if they were allowed to trade freely. I was surprised to learn this myself a few years ago. Yes, there is actually an international cartel that tightly controls the diamond supply to ensure that diamonds remain a valuable commodity. A company called DeBeers actually has warehouses full of diamonds in Europe, keeping millions of stones off the market, to ensure they remain scarce and valuable. 60 Minutes did a story on this fact a few years ago. Not only do they keep diamonds embargoed, they also are heavily involved in the mining trade and control the production side as well.Well, if such far flung efforts have been carried out successfully fordecades to ensure diamonds remain valuable, why is it so hard to believe that there are also powerful forces that manipulate energy markets. Energy is the most valuable commodity known to man at the moment, and oil is the prime energy commodity. Their is ample reason to manipulate the price of oil. I believe we see this manipulation every year as the U.S. government routinely spends $100 Billion or more to ensure the free flow of oil, also ensuring huge profits for the ExxonMobils of the world, and having the side-effect of retarding alternative energy competitiors who have to compete against a subsidized commodity like oil.
Re: Lightweight Ultraconducting Energy Storage
Los Alamos National Laboratory patented a lightweight containment system using Kevlar. While the Patent was in force, our firm had rights for use with our polymers. Now that their Patent has expired we still expect to use that lightweight system of containment for UMES electron flywheels. Carbon fiber may prove to be an even better alternative and we are watching wire development progress with that extremely light material many times stronger than steel. Mark From: Bob Fickle [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Room Temperature Superconductors and EVs Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 21:50:05 -0600 Much as I'd like to have some ultraconductor wire to play with, I'm not convinced that Ultrqaconducting Magnetic Energy Storage will replace batteries. Magnetic fields create a pressure equal to the energy density- and therefore require a strong (read heavy and expensive) mechanical container. Mark Goldes wrote: Harry, They can be made, but not yet in wire form. Thin films containing Ultraconductors 1 or 2 microns in diameter (1/50th the diameter of a human hair) can always carry 50 Amperes. The Ultraconductors run through the film in the thin direction, (i.e. normal to the film). Wire is 3 years and $18 million in front of us. Once available as wire, electron flywheels can begin to replace batteries. Ultraconducting Magnetic Energy Storage systems are expected to prove practical. Electric motors made with Ultraconducting wire can be much smaller and lighter, and may require no iron. Alll plastic motors may therefore prove practical. Superconducting motors require no iron. We suspect the same will be true of Ultraconductors. Mark From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: vortex-l@eskimo.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: Who Killed the EV? Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 18:29:14 -0500 If room temperature superconductors can be made they would also boost the performance of electric vehicles. If I remember correctly, a Time magazine cover from around '86 or '87 showed an artist's rendering of a futuristic electric vehicle as one of the promises of high temperature superconductors. Harry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder Do they mean the braking system did not use friction? It used both: disc in front, electric in rear. Here are the EV-1 specs: http://www.evchargernews.com/CD-A/gm_ev1_web_site/specs/specs_specs_top.h tm or http://tinyurl.com/ckaju ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: Ambient Gravimagnetic Field and the Earth Field
I wonder if there is a connection between Gravimagnetism and dowsing and ley lines... Harry Horace Heffner wrote: HERE'S THE AMAZING THING: the ambient gravimagnetic flux density is about 2 orders of magnitude larger than the Earth¹s gravimagnetic flux. density If correct, this should have profound implications for the Gravity Probe B experiment underway. It has other huge implications, but more to follow on that. Ambient Gravimagnetic Field and the Earth Field snip
Re: Who Killed the EV?
Zell, Chris wrote: -Original Message- From: OrionWorks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 3:17 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Who Killed the EV? From: Jed Rothwell Zell, Chris wrote: Cold weather makes electric cars even worse. The public wants wasteful, gas sucking monster SUV's , not dinky, 75 mile range, recharge - over night Toys. Testosterone related vehicles? Whenever my wife sees some old guy in a hot sports car, she yells Sorry about your penis! ...but do real men drive dinky electric cars? ;-) Harry
Re: Mizuno paper about explosion uploaded
From: Horace Heffner This is an indication the door was opened by the blast prior to the glass shards hitting it. The shards came through with enough energy to cause widespread injuries. This is only consistent with the primary energy of the blast being in the 1L-6 incubator, not the flask. I think Mizuno had it right when he said: The effluent hydrogen and oxygen were mixed in the cell headspace. There 2 ~ 3 cc of hydrogen at the time, although this is an open cell so only minimal amounts of gas remain in the headspace. It is possible that the tungsten cathode may have been exposed to the gas in the headspace. Even so - you neglect the major point Mizuno is making about the rise in water temperature - captured by his temp. probe and data logging. If we accept this as accurate: There was 700 grams of H2O which was heated for only ten seconds. Mizuno was not using much power, but the heating rate of 700 grams of water in figure on page 31 shows a rise in water temperature of 60 C in about 10 seconds. This would constitute an energy input of 176,400 Joules! Page 14 describes the input parameters - 15 volts and 1.5 Amps. This is a power input of 22.5 watts for 10 seconds but the power apparently accepted by the water was (DeltaT) (Mass of water) (1 calorie/gram)(4.2Joules/calorie) /10seconds = 60(700grams) (4.2)/10 = 17,640 watts. That is a gain of 780 for power output versus power input. Elsewhere he calculates the gain in that same range. This explosion was NOT due to just a few cc of hydrogen in the headspace, nor even to that combined with much more outside the headspeace. Jones
