Re: [Vo]: Re: FW: [Vo]: weight and charge
On Saturday 25 November 2006 18:19, Kyle R. Mcallister wrote: > - Original Message - > From: "Jeff Fink" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 11:49 AM > Subject: [Vo]: FW: [Vo]: weight and charge > > > Rather than use hydraulic shocks on vehicles that convert energy into > > waste > > heat, why not use electro magnetic shocks and put the energy back into > > the battery? > > A mechanic comments: > > 1. The amount of energy you would gain is useless. Ever felt a hot shock? > You won't unless it is next to something that is radiating a lot of heat, > say, a brake rotor or a rear shock near an exhaust pipe. > > 2. This would be yet another sucker punch to the working class who are > barely able to afford new automobiles as it is. We need to simplify and > make them cheaper, not more complex. If efficiency must suffer, so be it. > Then the solution is to find a better front-end energy source (read: cheap > synthetic fuel) > > 3. Basic shocks cost between $15.00 and $100.00 for most American cars. A > Mercedes-Benz S500's computerized shocks (stupid concept) price around > $1200.00 apiece. This is so that people who live in a country the size of a > small-end state can cruise at 140+mph, whereas here in the geographically > massive USA we get by just fine on 65mph. The added complexity is insane. > > 4. There are those in government who are trying to impose computerized > shocks and such as mandatory equipment on all new cars produced after 2009. > In the name of safety of course. This is stupidity. We need better, > smarter, more educated drivers who will not NEED another idiot system to > correct their own lack of driving sense. Make the licenses harder to get I > say. > > >Additionally, electronic controls would allow the driver to adjust > > the feel of the ride to anything he wants at the touch of a button. > > Any thoughts on how much this could extend the range of an electric car? > > To what end? Why? If people wanting smoother rides are the same as those > complaining about rising prices of cars and fueldamn. > > Jeff I am not flaming you, please understand that. It is just that as a > mechanic and one of the 'little guys' who sees my peers getting hurt day in > and day out, that I am really beginning to hate the words 'safety' and > 'efficiency'. Especially when they are used to line people's pockets. > > --Kyle I feel this is not about safety or 'ride'. Rather it is about getting you the working person out of your car. Permanently! If you cannot afford to buy or fix a car, then you will not drive. Period. This is just another way to create another elitist privilege, driving, out of what really is a necessity. Think of the disruption and depression in the USA if workers could not afford to drive! Especially if because of some stupid bureaucratic screwup of a rule. Standing Bear that aint scientific, but neither are starvin people
Re: [Vo]: Oil shale research in Israel
On Saturday 25 November 2006 10:26, Kyle R. Mcallister wrote: > Interesting if accurate: > > http://www.upi.com/Energy/view.php?StoryID=20061107-070924-5161r > > And the CO2phobes begin to scream in 5...4...3...2 > > If indeed workable, we can begin 2 things almost immediately, if played > right: > > 1. Rapidly shut down U.S. reliance on foreign oil imports, ideally ending > them altogether. > 2. If it is so cheap, use the excess profits (well, some anyways, got to > give the companies some incentive) to begin constructing solar facilities > in the desert. This will take some pretty serious regulation, but should be > done. > > The oil shale, if this works as well as it seems, may be our last chance to > get off our collective rear ends and set up permanently renewable energy > sources, while having a nice buffer of cheap, profit-making energy during > the time of transition. I can see the oil companies (if not involved in the > oil shale conversion process) and the envirofascists (this does not include > all those who are environmentalists, just the whackjobs) being the two > greatest threats to doing this. > > --Kyle Kyle, I am afraid that we will always have a serious oversupply of whackjobs. Many of these are sincere wackos, but many others have an ulterior motive for being obstructionists and economic saboteurs. For instance if one wanted to destabilize or harm a nation for any reason, this kind of activity would be one of the most efficient means possible to cause maximum misery to the target population. Those who went along with them for any reason would be the usefull fools that inhabit most any bandwagon. Also, luddites probably will be also found in the pay of major energy producer industries not benefited by this process. Whatever energy we choose to develope, we need to develope it quickly as world events are showing quickening. Standing Bear
[Vo]: Re: FW: [Vo]: weight and charge
- Original Message - From: "Jeff Fink" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 11:49 AM Subject: [Vo]: FW: [Vo]: weight and charge Rather than use hydraulic shocks on vehicles that convert energy into waste heat, why not use electro magnetic shocks and put the energy back into the battery? A mechanic comments: 1. The amount of energy you would gain is useless. Ever felt a hot shock? You won't unless it is next to something that is radiating a lot of heat, say, a brake rotor or a rear shock near an exhaust pipe. 2. This would be yet another sucker punch to the working class who are barely able to afford new automobiles as it is. We need to simplify and make them cheaper, not more complex. If efficiency must suffer, so be it. Then the solution is to find a better front-end energy source (read: cheap synthetic fuel) 3. Basic shocks cost between $15.00 and $100.00 for most American cars. A Mercedes-Benz S500's computerized shocks (stupid concept) price around $1200.00 apiece. This is so that people who live in a country the size of a small-end state can cruise at 140+mph, whereas here in the geographically massive USA we get by just fine on 65mph. The added complexity is insane. 4. There are those in government who are trying to impose computerized shocks and such as mandatory equipment on all new cars produced after 2009. In the name of safety of course. This is stupidity. We need better, smarter, more educated drivers who will not NEED another idiot system to correct their own lack of driving sense. Make the licenses harder to get I say. Additionally, electronic controls would allow the driver to adjust the feel of the ride to anything he wants at the touch of a button. Any thoughts on how much this could extend the range of an electric car? To what end? Why? If people wanting smoother rides are the same as those complaining about rising prices of cars and fueldamn. Jeff I am not flaming you, please understand that. It is just that as a mechanic and one of the 'little guys' who sees my peers getting hurt day in and day out, that I am really beginning to hate the words 'safety' and 'efficiency'. Especially when they are used to line people's pockets. --Kyle
Re: [Vo]: Re: The Toroid Railroad Generator
If you wish, but not with speed bumps please ;-) Michel - Original Message - From: "Harry Veeder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 8:40 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: The Toroid Railroad Generator > > Great idea...but I think extracting energy from landing aircraft > would be slightly less ridiculous. > > Harry > > Frederick Sparber wrote: > > While we're on the subject of "ridiculous" ways to extract > energy from moving machinery, why not a robotic-coal-fired train with > carloads > of super-magnets going around in a circle inside a toroid "tunnel"? > > Over-Unity "Roll-Around" possible with computerized > hydraulic-gravity-enhanced downgrade? > > Kits available by 11-31-06. > > Fred > > > >
Re: [Vo]: Re: The Toroid Railroad Generator
Great idea...but I think extracting energy from landing aircraft would be slightly less ridiculous. Harry Frederick Sparber wrote: While we're on the subject of "ridiculous" ways to extract energy from moving machinery, why not a robotic-coal-fired train with carloads of super-magnets going around in a circle inside a toroid "tunnel"? Over-Unity "Roll-Around" possible with computerized hydraulic-gravity-enhanced downgrade? Kits available by 11-31-06. Fred
Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
Think about it. The energy generated is not meant to power vehicles. It is meant to power the traffic systems that driver's utilise. The energy costs of operating a vehicle are not just the cost of filling the gas tank or recharging a fuel cell or battery. These costs are born by municipal governments, which in turn are born by local taxpayers ... you do the math. Harry Michel Jullian wrote: > "Q1. Doesn't the ramp just steal pennies from our petrol tanks? > > A1. The ramp is designed to be situated in parts of the roadway where > vehicles are having to slow down anyway, for example on downhill > gradients, when approaching traffic lights or roundabouts as well as > being used to replace sleeping policemen and traditional traffic > calming measures. In the these situations, the kinetic energy of the > car is being dissipated into heat (i.e. through the braking system) > anyway; the ramp at this point scavenges a degree of kinetic energy > as the car passes over it, but this is far less than is lost through > other mechanisms."Harry, this "technology" is ridiculous, and so is the > argument above, as hybrid and fully electric cars feature kinetic energy > recuperation already.Michel > - Original Message - > From: "Harry Veeder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 4:19 AM > Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge > > >> Frederick Sparber wrote: >> >>> Harry Veeder wrote: Here is an example of "little speed bumps" generating electricity. http://www.kinergypower.com/index_files/Page452.htm Harry >>> The last time I drove over a concave speed bump aka a "pothole" it >>> cost me a tire and a new wheel. I guess I was going too slow Harry. >> >> I suppose it is concave, but this version, called the Electro-Kinetic Road >> Ramp, is slightly convex. >> >> Diagram (1.4 MB) >> http://www.hughesresearch.co.uk/Pictures_Videos/Pics/Ramp_1/ >> Full_Ramp_Guide_Thumb.jpg >> >> Frequently Asked Questions >> http://www.hughesresearch.co.uk/FAQs.htm >> >> >>> At 60 mph (0.088 ft/millisecond) against a wheel drop distance of >>> 1/2 * 32.2 ft/second^2 * 0.001 second^2 = 0.0161 ft or 0.193 inches >>> for the first 0.088 feet or 1.056 inches of initial pothole width.(not >>> counting >>> the downward thrust of the wheel by the springs ). >>> >>> This GSU URL will guide you through bigger concave speed bumps "Potholes". >>> with the free fall and trajectory calculators. (spring-shock absorber >>> contribution not included) >>> it covers it all. >>> >>> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/traj.html >>> >>> KinergyPower is coming from your gas tank-wallet. The oil interests will >>> endorse it too. :-) >>> >>> Fred >> >> Before you jump to conclusions about the value of such devices, please read >> the FAQ above. >> >> >> Harry >> >
RE: [Vo]: 1.568 x 10 -25 Farads
Hi Frank, You should try moving to my universe, it's twice as large and we won't be bumping into each other as much *grin* But seriously, why do our calculations differ? If my derivation is wrong, can you show me why? Let's at least nail that down before we tackle the entire universe... K. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 11:17 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]: 1.568 x 10 -25 Farads It is remarkable to me that the voltages there particles are at range from 1/2 to 2 million volts. Freds discussion about a (sort of) distributed model had too many hands for me to comment on *grin*. K. .. I hope that I am not the source of the several that have unsupscriped from this list. This, as you have said, this is remarkable. What is even more remarkable is; compute the capacitance of a sphere 13.3 billion light years in diameter. Reduce this valve of capacitance by the gravitational coupling constant. You will get 1.568 x 10 -25 Farads. Is the capacitance of the universe established by the gravitational field and its bounds? Is this universe capacitively coupled to everything within it? It think so. http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chaptera.html What do you think? Frank Z
[Vo]: FW: [Vo]: weight and charge
-Original Message- From: Jeff Fink [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 11:11 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [Vo]: weight and charge I didn't follow all of this thread, but an interesting thought occurred to me that may have been considered and rejected already. Rather than use hydraulic shocks on vehicles that convert energy into waste heat, why not use electro magnetic shocks and put the energy back into the battery? Additionally, electronic controls would allow the driver to adjust the feel of the ride to anything he wants at the touch of a button. Any thoughts on how much this could extend the range of an electric car? Jeff
RE: [Vo]: 1.568 x 10 -25 Farads
It is remarkable to me that the voltages there particles are at range from 1/2 to 2 million volts. Freds discussion about a (sort of) distributed model had too many hands for me to comment on *grin*. K. .. I hope that I am not the source of the several that have unsupscriped from this list. This, as you have said, this is remarkable. What is even more remarkable is; compute the capacitance of a sphere 13.3 billion light years in diameter. Reduce this valve of capacitance by the gravitational coupling constant. You will get 1.568 x 10 -25 Farads. Is the capacitance of the universe established by the gravitational field and its bounds? Is this universe capacitively coupled to everything within it? It think so. _http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chaptera.html_ (http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chaptera.html) What do you think? Frank Z
[Vo]: might as well start going off about the rotorverter then.
its a method of using a off-the-shelf low-horsepower electric motor, to produce 3x as much energy than is going in. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6905677911913482159 <- video http://www.theverylastpageoftheinternet.com/ElectromagneticDev/arkresearch/rotoverter.htm http://panacea-bocaf.org/RotoVerter.htm http://peswiki.com/index.php/Rotoverter feel free to piss all over it - but maybe check what it does first so you know what it is. p.s. its fun to be against steorn "from the start". isnt it? gives you a opinion to have, doesn't it? and thats fun, isn't it?
[Vo]: Re: The Toroid Railroad Generator
While we're on the subject of "ridiculous" ways to extract energy from moving machinery, why not a robotic-coal-fired train with carloads of super-magnets going around in a circle inside a toroid "tunnel"? Over-Unity "Roll-Around" possible with computerized hydraulic-gravity-enhanced downgrade? Kits available by 11-31-06. FredBEGIN:VCARD VERSION:2.1 N:;dburns2;; FN:dburns2 NICKNAME: ORG:; TITLE: TEL;HOME;VOICE: TEL;WORK;VOICE: TEL;CELL;VOICE: TEL;PAGER;VOICE: TEL;HOME;FAX: TEL;WORK;FAX: ADR;HOME:;; ADR;WORK:;; URL;HOME: URL;WORK: BDAY: ANNIV: SPOUSE: FAMILY: EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] NOTE: IM;PREF;INTERNET:; IM;INTERNET:; IM;INTERNET:; VCARD_END:VCARD
[Vo]: Oil shale research in Israel
Interesting if accurate: http://www.upi.com/Energy/view.php?StoryID=20061107-070924-5161r And the CO2phobes begin to scream in 5...4...3...2 If indeed workable, we can begin 2 things almost immediately, if played right: 1. Rapidly shut down U.S. reliance on foreign oil imports, ideally ending them altogether. 2. If it is so cheap, use the excess profits (well, some anyways, got to give the companies some incentive) to begin constructing solar facilities in the desert. This will take some pretty serious regulation, but should be done. The oil shale, if this works as well as it seems, may be our last chance to get off our collective rear ends and set up permanently renewable energy sources, while having a nice buffer of cheap, profit-making energy during the time of transition. I can see the oil companies (if not involved in the oil shale conversion process) and the envirofascists (this does not include all those who are environmentalists, just the whackjobs) being the two greatest threats to doing this. --Kyle
Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
Michel Jullian wrote: > > "Q1. Doesn't the ramp just steal pennies from our petrol tanks? > > A1. The ramp is designed to be situated in parts of the roadway where > vehicles are having to slow down anyway, for example on downhill > gradients, when approaching traffic lights or roundabouts as well as > being used to replace sleeping policemen and traditional traffic > calming measures. In the these situations, the kinetic energy of the > car is being dissipated into heat (i.e. through the braking system) > anyway; the ramp at this point scavenges a degree of kinetic energy > as the car passes over it, but this is far less than is lost through > other mechanisms." > > Harry, this "technology" is ridiculous, and so is the argument above, as hybrid and > fully electric cars feature kinetic energy recuperation already. > >Michel > Ludicrous is the more fitting terminology. The examiners at the patent office have a sense of humor too. OTOH. It sheds new light on the meaning of Beltways, and the "Beltway Bandits". Fred > - Original Message - > From: "Harry Veeder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 4:19 AM > Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge > > > > Frederick Sparber wrote: > > > >> Harry Veeder wrote: > >>> > >>> Here is an example of "little speed bumps" generating > >>> electricity. > >>> > >>> http://www.kinergypower.com/index_files/Page452.htm > >>> > >>> > >>> Harry > >>> > >>> > >> The last time I drove over a concave speed bump aka a "pothole" it > >> cost me a tire and a new wheel. I guess I was going too slow Harry. > > > > I suppose it is concave, but this version, called the Electro-Kinetic Road > > Ramp, is slightly convex. > > > > Diagram (1.4 MB) > > http://www.hughesresearch.co.uk/Pictures_Videos/Pics/Ramp_1/ > > Full_Ramp_Guide_Thumb.jpg > > > > Frequently Asked Questions > > http://www.hughesresearch.co.uk/FAQs.htm > > > > > >> At 60 mph (0.088 ft/millisecond) against a wheel drop distance of > >> 1/2 * 32.2 ft/second^2 * 0.001 second^2 = 0.0161 ft or 0.193 inches > >> for the first 0.088 feet or 1.056 inches of initial pothole width.(not > >> counting > >> the downward thrust of the wheel by the springs ). > >> > >> This GSU URL will guide you through bigger concave speed bumps "Potholes". > >> with the free fall and trajectory calculators. (spring-shock absorber > >> contribution not included) > >> it covers it all. > >> > >> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/traj.html > >> > >> KinergyPower is coming from your gas tank-wallet. The oil interests will > >> endorse it too. :-) > >> > >> Fred > > > > Before you jump to conclusions about the value of such devices, please read > > the FAQ above. > > > > > > Harry > >
Re: [Vo]: [OT] Google Maps Easter Eggs
It's definitely faked. Zoom in and look at the outline of the blimp. Michel - Original Message - From: "Nick Palmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 1:10 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: [OT] Google Maps Easter Eggs > I'm not so sure that it was faked. If true, this airship was flying several > hundred to a thousand feet above the ground. Taking the sun angle and > direction from cars and building shadows, the shadow of the airship should > be at least 1000 to 2000 feet away. > > I saw a couple of candidates for the missing shadow but the best one can be > found by turning right off Leaf land drive NW onto Post Oak drive NW. After > about 200 feet there is a bend to the left - on the outside of this bend > there is a house with a clearly defined roof shadow but "upsun" of the house > (South East) is what looks like a diffuse ovoid shadow. Looking at the angle > the airship is to the sun, this shape would be expected and it would be > diffuse because of the diffraction at that distance from the source. Or not! > > Nick Palmer >
Re: [Vo]: unsubscribe
As before, you must send a null message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the subject header saying unsubscribe. On 11/24/06, Christopher Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: unsubscribe - Please Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com
Re: [Vo]: unsubscribe - "Please"
--- Christopher Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > unsubscribe - Please > > > > > Do you Yahoo!? > Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail > beta. > http://new.mail.yahoo.com > > Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index
Re: [Vo]: [OT] Google Maps Easter Eggs
I'm not so sure that it was faked. If true, this airship was flying several hundred to a thousand feet above the ground. Taking the sun angle and direction from cars and building shadows, the shadow of the airship should be at least 1000 to 2000 feet away. I saw a couple of candidates for the missing shadow but the best one can be found by turning right off Leaf land drive NW onto Post Oak drive NW. After about 200 feet there is a bend to the left - on the outside of this bend there is a house with a clearly defined roof shadow but "upsun" of the house (South East) is what looks like a diffuse ovoid shadow. Looking at the angle the airship is to the sun, this shape would be expected and it would be diffuse because of the diffraction at that distance from the source. Or not! Nick Palmer
Re: [Vo]: weight and charge
"Q1. Doesn't the ramp just steal pennies from our petrol tanks? A1. The ramp is designed to be situated in parts of the roadway where vehicles are having to slow down anyway, for example on downhill gradients, when approaching traffic lights or roundabouts as well as being used to replace sleeping policemen and traditional traffic calming measures. In the these situations, the kinetic energy of the car is being dissipated into heat (i.e. through the braking system) anyway; the ramp at this point scavenges a degree of kinetic energy as the car passes over it, but this is far less than is lost through other mechanisms."Harry, this "technology" is ridiculous, and so is the argument above, as hybrid and fully electric cars feature kinetic energy recuperation already.Michel - Original Message - From: "Harry Veeder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 4:19 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: weight and charge > Frederick Sparber wrote: > >> Harry Veeder wrote: >>> >>> Here is an example of "little speed bumps" generating >>> electricity. >>> >>> http://www.kinergypower.com/index_files/Page452.htm >>> >>> >>> Harry >>> >>> >> The last time I drove over a concave speed bump aka a "pothole" it >> cost me a tire and a new wheel. I guess I was going too slow Harry. > > I suppose it is concave, but this version, called the Electro-Kinetic Road > Ramp, is slightly convex. > > Diagram (1.4 MB) > http://www.hughesresearch.co.uk/Pictures_Videos/Pics/Ramp_1/ > Full_Ramp_Guide_Thumb.jpg > > Frequently Asked Questions > http://www.hughesresearch.co.uk/FAQs.htm > > >> At 60 mph (0.088 ft/millisecond) against a wheel drop distance of >> 1/2 * 32.2 ft/second^2 * 0.001 second^2 = 0.0161 ft or 0.193 inches >> for the first 0.088 feet or 1.056 inches of initial pothole width.(not >> counting >> the downward thrust of the wheel by the springs ). >> >> This GSU URL will guide you through bigger concave speed bumps "Potholes". >> with the free fall and trajectory calculators. (spring-shock absorber >> contribution not included) >> it covers it all. >> >> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/traj.html >> >> KinergyPower is coming from your gas tank-wallet. The oil interests will >> endorse it too. :-) >> >> Fred > > Before you jump to conclusions about the value of such devices, please read > the FAQ above. > > > Harry >
[Vo]: Re: weight and charge
No need to do 17,000 mph to get into weightlessness, a well designed speed bump will do it for you (parabolic trajectory) at 30 mph more or less. Personally I prefer electro-dynamic braking better than treadmills built into the highway to save gas and maintenance costs, Harry. Fred http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weightlessness " So clearly it is possible to experience zero-g without going into space. Any aircraft can do this by pushing it over into a parabolic arc. Even any car that hits a bump fast enough to leave the ground will experience zero-g for the time that the wheels are not in contact with the road."
