Re: [Vo]:Sargassum for ethanol experimented in Taiwan
In reply to R C Macaulay's message of Mon, 14 Apr 2008 23:22:41 -0500: Hi, [snip] Howdy Jones, The nation is absolutely overloaded with technology but getting the bits and pieces fitted together takes teamwork which is an absentee to the equation. The wine, vinegar and beer brewers alone have some adanced tech tricks they could add.. plus the petro refiners have a whole slice of the puzzle already solved.. Speaking of brew.. ever wonder when a glass jar of preserved home made corn explodes.. there may be more than fermentation involved. If one goes off.. the whole shelf follows in sequence... hmm.. strange. Richard ...not really. All made from the same batch, therefore all fermenting, just not all at quite the same rate. Nevertheless, all building pressure internally. When the first one goes it creates a shock wave that hits the nearest jar, distorting it so that it also explodes and triggers the next in sequence etc. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
[Vo]:Re: Eye of the Gyre
Thanks Robin, good point. If this was a problem, hopefully other Gyres won't have such restrictions. Michel - Original Message - From: Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 5:14 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Eye of the Gyre In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Tue, 15 Apr 2008 02:02:43 +0200: Hi, [snip] I have a vague recollection of the Sargasso see being a protected marine environment. That may restrict what you can do. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
[Vo]:Re: CNN video of Vertigro algae factory
Thanks for bringing this point up, I don't remember atmospheric N-fixing by algae being discussed before. It seems you guessed correctly, at least for the blue-green species known as cyanobacteria: Some species of blue-green algae do not need much of the nutrient nitrogen present in the water because they take in nitrogen from the air to grow. These ... www.sjrwmd.com/streamlines/1999winter/fs_algae.pdf ...and the answer to your last question is yes, at least for seaweeds (which don't fix nitrogen from the air I don't think): For centuries seaweed has been used as fertilizer. ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algaculture ...but it may be possible to use cyanobacteria to provide seaweeds with nitrogen by symbiosis, judging from the number of hits here: http://www.google.com/search?hl=enq=symbiosis+cyanobacteria+seaweedbtnG=Google+Search ...so it may well make sense to cultivate both N-fixing and non N-fixing species in symbiosis in a Gyre scheme, using the cyanobacteria as nitrogen providers for the sargassum, or the sargassum as a floating support for the oil rich cyanobacteria depending which way you look at it... Jones will tell us if this makes sense. Michel - Original Message - From: Michael Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 5:01 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:CNN video of Vertigro algae factory Jones wrote: I want them to be accurate (100,000 gallons per acre of oil and 700,000 pound of algae protein) but I fear that they are inflated. I had no idea algae were nitrogen fixating organisms, which they would have to be to produce so much protein. I thought the bulk of the non-lipid material would be cellulosic. What I'm getting at is that if the algae fixes nitrogen from the air, it would make an excellent fertilizer for other crops. Or is this already well-known? M.
[Vo]:Re: Sargassum for ethanol experimented in Taiwan
Good points Jones, indeed butanol seems preferable. Michel - Original Message - From: Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 5:40 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Sargassum for ethanol experimented in Taiwan --- Michel Jullian wrote: Summary: Sargassum is a high growth species (10 times the output volume of gracilaria), convertible to ethanol. Well - to be precise, any biofuel system should aim for butanol instead of ethanol... Butanol is highly preferable for several reasons already mentioned in past postings: better energy density, lack of corrosion and low water affinity, less vapor pressure, and easy substitution into either diesel or gasoline, and unlimited blending in any ratio, etc... That choice is a no-brainer. ... plus AFAIK biomass which is convertible into one alcohol can be converted to the other by changing the bacteria strain. PLUS - back in 2005, we broke the so-called fermentation barrier using electrical assist... which is a big jump in the hybridization of the fermentation process itself. The first electrically-assisted process was aimed at getting more hydrogen out of fermentation for fuel cells, but fuel cells are a bust. And hydrogen can't be easily stored. That new wrinkle in fermentation was able to produce four times the quantity of hydrogen over typical fermentation by eliminating one of the parasitic demands of the process. There is every reason to believe that that with genetic engineering, in consort with electrical assist, we can convert sargassum into butanol VERY efficiently, since it is closer to cellulose in chemical makeup than is ethanol. As I understand it, the fermentation barrier is about limiting the effect of acetic acid and other unwanted chemical pathways by providing a slight power boost to the bacteria in the form of a direct electric current at 0.25 volts or so. If you put in much higher voltage, the higher current kills the bacteria but a small boost can accelerate a desired pathway. At any rate, this and other rapidly evolving RD shows that new methods are out there, which can be tailored to needs, and are ready to provide increased renewable energy from biomass over what has been the traditional approach and expectation. Jones
Re: [Vo]:Riots, instability spread as food prices skyrocket
[Note: this message has the wrong Reply To] Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: This is sophistry at its finest: The contrived food vs. fuel debate has reared its ugly head once It sure is. Meat production is hideously inefficient (post-processing soy beans by feeding them to cows, instead of turning them into tofu, is economically insane), and meat production is the largest single contributor to global warming (or so I have read). I have read that it is about 10%. Surely that is less than electric power or transportation. Anyway it is a lot. But help is on the way! Progress is being made in in vitro or cultured meat. See: http://invitromeat.org/content/view/14/29/ http://io9.com/379280/vat+grown-meat-about-to-hit-your-local-market - Jed
[Vo]:Babbage's Difference Engine Lives!
This might seem a tad anachronistic to some, but fascinating nevertheless: Building a 5-ton mechanical calculator... from 19th-century plans. http://www.networkworld.com/cgi-bin/mailto/x.cgi?pagetosend=/export/home/httpd/htdocs/news/2008/041108-difference-engine.htmlpagename=/news/2008/041108-difference-engine.htmlpageurl=http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/041108-difference-engine.htm http://tinyurl.com/5ql8me Enjoy! Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:Sargassum (or garbage) to gasoline in one step
Mark Goldes sent me the following information which has direct relevance to any scheme to harvest the bounty of Earth's oceans for transportation fuel. As many of you know, Mark has been involved in advanced alternative energy thinking for many years prior to Ultraconductors and MPI. Nearly forty years ago, his Aesop Institute was a sponsor of the wind car mentioned recently. The Institute, founded in 1973, is a non-profit tax exempt organization with the goal of finding alternatives to fossil and uranium fuels. BTW if any vortician out there knows of a good candidate billionaire (i.e. the rare one with a social conscience) - like the inimitable Richard Branson - and which far-sighted-funder now sees the wisdom of investing in advanced alternative energy projects, like the one we are tossing around this week on vortex, please have them contact Mark directly. Anyway, the new twist on the conversion of sargassum into gasoline comes from George Huber of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. It is a revolutionary method for making green gasoline from cellulose: basically any sort of wood or grass... I see no good reason why the same process would not be ideal for ocean-derived forms of biomass. Results of Huber's research were published in the April 2008 issue of ChemSusChem, a publication devoted to environmentally-sound chemistry. Breaking the Chemical and Engineering Barriers to Lignocellulosic Biofuels, http://www.ecs.umass.edu/biofuels/Images/Roadmap2-08.pdf We've proven this method on a small scale in the lab, says Huber, but we need to make further improvements and prove it on a large scale before it's going to be economically viable. Huber's method is a one-step conversion method, whereas other processes like fermentation takes several or dozens of steps. The new catalytic technique involves a special reactor, in which the feedstock undergoes catalytic fast pyrolysis the rapid heating to 600 degrees centigrade followed by quick cooling. By adding zeolite catalysts to this process, gasoline range hydrocarbons can be directly produced from cellulose within sixty seconds. With cellulosic ethanol, your residence time is five to ten days, which means you need to have a much larger reactor for the same output and possibly could not do this onboard the harvesting vessel itself. With the one-step process, conversion could probably be accomplished 24/7, and immediately after harvesting and dewatering, and in series so that feedstock is not stored- only finished product (gasoline for instance). As any sailors may appreciate, the available space onboard even a large catamaran is limited due to the narrow hulls. Here is a smaller version of what a ship might look like without the harvesting apparatus between the hulls: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_class_research_ship All of this varied information, none of it particularly unique (since even the Huber pyrolysis process has been known in prior art) is starting to come together into a highly doable package for one near term solution to a sustainable and carbon-neutral future... Jones
Re: [Vo]:Re: OT: Numbers and cucumbers
Robin van Spaandonk wrote: In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 3 Apr 2008 07:05:44 -0700 (PDT): Hi, Whenever the people start to make actual headway, the currency is devalued to the point that they are put back in their place. ;^) Most of the support being provided by the Fed. is created out of whole cloth if I'm not mistaken. IOW, they just print more money. Actually, from what I've read this is exactly what they're /not/ doing just now. They had been doing that -- pushing the federal funds rate down to 2.xx%, and (presumably) pushing the discount rate down as well, results in more money being pumped into the economy. That stimulates the economy as a whole, at the cost of increasing the money supply, which is likely to lead to inflation. It puts the whole economy on speed. But the rate reductions were largely under way even before the complete meltdown of the housing industry. Most recently, they have had the option of pushing rates down even farther (by pumping yet more money into the banks) but they've been avoiding that. The fed funds rate has been stuck at its present level for a while now. They could also buy more Treasury debt through the open market desk; that has much the same effect (but doesn't get reported in the news so much, maybe because it confuses people). They haven't been doing that, either, however. Instead, according to what I've read, they've been pushing money into the housing industry directly, by attempting to shore up mortgage lenders using money the Fed obtains by /selling/ treasury instruments which are already in their portfolio. That's a zero-sum approach, which transfers money from the economy as a whole directly into the housing industry. The goal is apparently to beef up housing (and all related industries, along with turkeys who bought real estate stocks on margin, and la-de-da) /without/ blowing up the economy as a whole. If and when that approach finally shows itself inadequate, then they'll go back to pushing general rates down. Or so it is widely expected (the Fed doesn't telegraph its plans, of course). * * * When bashing the Fed, keep in mind that we have a Federal government whose fiscal policy is completely out of control: We are fighting a major war without price controls and without rationing, and the Federal deficit is dwarfing King Kong. And, of course, oil prices are going through the roof and probably won't ever come back. The natural result of all that is inflation. The /only/ organization fighting inflation right now is the Fed, and all they have to work with in fighting inflation is monetary policy. And the instruments they have to control it are actually very blunt: They can push money into the banks or pull it out, and that's about all. And, they're trying to pull the country out of a financial downturn at the same time they're trying to dampen inflation. Give Bernanke some credit; Bush has given him an impossible problem to cope with. No doubt Bernanke could do better, but he sure could be doing a lot worse, too, I think. Everyone loves to bash the independent private Fed. If we didn't have an independent semi-private Fed right now, the Republicans would no doubt have thrown great bales of money at the economy to get it revved up for the upcoming election, and we'd be seeing inflation rates 5 or 10 times what they currently are. Note, thought, that this isn't a problem with Republicans; it's a problem with central governments in general. The reason the world moved to putting independent central banks in charge of minting money, rather than letting the federal governments have direct control, is that no federal government, United States or elsewhere, seems able to resist the urge to just print their way out of all problems. Talk about setting a cat to watch the canary -- that's exactly what happens if the federal government controls the presses, and it's what the independent Fed is supposed to avoid. Banks and businesses, which have a lot of say in what the Fed does, hate inflation a lot more than the federal government -- in fact, in the natural course of things, the federal government LOVES inflation: it's the world's biggest debtor and debtors always love inflation. The federal reserve system is far from perfect but it seems to be the best anyone's come up with so far. (End rant.) This is the very definition of inflation if I'm not mistaken. In this case, not only is the populace being made poorer through devaluation of the currency, but the printed money is being handed openly to the wealthy elite responsible for making a fast buck and causing the problem in the first place. It's all so very Ferengi (one from you, two for me, one from you, two for me...), you almost have to admire the audacity of it. Of course if people really caught on, there would be an old fashioned lynching (...of the scapegoat of course ;). [snip] Indeed it is !
Re: [Vo]:CNN video of Vertigro algae factory
Jones Beene wrote: [Regarding the CNN video of Vertigro algae factory] ``... Actually, it never hurts to see many different perspectives of a very important topic (potentially) from a variety of news sources. I would suggest adding these comments (features) to optimize such a system, at least when it is realized on a larger scale (several acres): 1) A diesel gen-set to burn a small proportion of the harvest. Also a windmill. The on-site power provides the pumping for the water and the energy necessary to extract the lipids from the protein. If some extra electricity is generated- it is for peak power and will bring in top dollar ...'' Hi All, Is it possible that the windmill could generate substantial electrical power with a spider turbine pumping the water (analogous to a pond aerator) by breaking hydrogen bonds? See the info enclosed below. A spider turbine is shown on page 32 of Infinite Energy, Vol. 78. Jack Smith http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue77/manhattan.html Infinite Energy, ISSUE 77, Jan/Feb 2008 and ISSUE 78, Mar/Apr 2008, by Peter Graneau ``Upgraded Hydroelectric Water Turbines Furthermore, it came as a surprise to find that the gravitational energy of water driving hydroelectric generators is so much smaller, per unit volume of the liquid, than the potential energy stored in the weak hydrogen bonds of the same volume of water. The gravitational head of a hydroelectric plant is the height of the top of the dam above the inlet of the turbine at the bottom of the dam. In existing plants this is usually less than 1,000 m. One liter of water has a mass of one kilogram. Then with a head of 1,000 m, the water stores 9,810 J of gravitational energy or approximately 10 kJ/kg. Compared to this, the hydrogen bond energy stored in one kilogram of liquid water is likely to be of the same order as the latent heat, or 2,360 kJ/kg, which is more than 200 times as large as the gravitational energy. If only a very small fraction of the hydrogen bonds passing through the turbine is ruptured to set their bond energy free, it could easily double the energy available in the turbine to drive the electricity generator. This stunning result demands a major investigation of what is actually happening in existing hydroelectric plants. Here is what we know now. Three quantities have to be measured to determine the efficiency of a hydroelectric installation. First, the gravitational input energy is a function of the height of the dam above the turbine and the mass flow (kg/s) through the turbine. Normal means of optical surveying will deal with the gravitational energy per kilogram of water. The mass flow can presumably be measured with flow meters in the inlet pipe (penstock) of the turbine. The gravitational energy input is the product of the mass flow and the head of water. Secondly, existing instrumentation of the power plant tells us reliably what the electrical energy output is. Thirdly, to calculate the overall efficiency it has to be known how much kinetic energy is carried away by the effluent of the water turbine. This latter quantity is very difficult to determine because every drop of water leaving the turbine may travel in a different direction with a different velocity! So how have the published efficiency figures been justified? The chances are that in some of the efficiency determinations the energy discharged in the form of water kinetic energy has simply been ignored. If this is true, then the 85-95% efficiencies are an underestimate. It is not impossible there exist cases where the allowance for discharged energy may drive the efficiency figure over 100%. This would not be acceptable because it violates energy conservation, unless an unknown energy source comes into play in the rotating turbine. How could something as important as hydrogen bond energy liberation in water turbines have been overlooked? The blame lies with the chemistry textbook writers and teachers. After the discovery of hydrogen bonds by the famous American chemist Gilbert Lewis in 1923, the chemistry establishment simply failed to explore the effects which hydrogen bond energy has on chemistry experiments and how it may be related to the latent heat of water. This historical omission, in 2007, gives us the opportunity to introduce a ldquo;newrdquo; source of energy. Recognizing the inevitability of hydrogen bond rupture in water turbines, every effort should be made to exploit this discovery for electricity generation. The first task is to investigate how turbo-generators can be modified to double their electrical energy output for the same gravitational energy input. Should a concerted RD effort be successful in attaining this objective, it becomes feasible, worldwide, to increase electricity generation by about 10% without any major civil engineering work and any changes in the means of water collection and storage. This would outstrip the benefits that can be gained by future
Re: [Vo]:CNN video of Vertigro algae factory
Jack, Without challenging the major premise (Graneau's hydrogen bond-breaking hypothesis) of the article which you referenced, it contains one serious logical error which needs to be mentioned. http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue77/manhattan.html Here is the error: On examination of the published efficiencies of hydroelectric turbines it was found that for large turbines this is quoted to be as high as 85-95% percent. It is far superior to the efficiency achieved with steam turbines of fossil fuel driven power stations. There exists a possibility that hydrogen bond energy contributes to the measured efficiencies and already generates some of our electricity. If this happens unintentionally, the effect can probably be enhanced by engineering design. END of quote OK- the serious error (Graneau should be ashamed) is in comparing mechanical efficiency of hydroelectric turbines (which is the 85-95% number cited) with the Carnot efficiency of steam turbines. Yes, the net efficiency of steam/ fossil fuel is usually in the range of 40-45% but this is a function of Carnot limitations and that is totally different and *irrelevant comparison* which neither proves not disproves the Graneau hypothesis. In fact, the mechanical efficiency of the turbines in fossil fuel plants is the same or higher ! Plus, and to make things even worse, there could exist the same kind of bond-breaking with steam ! These steam turbines can be, and often are, actually higher in mechanical efficiency (not lower as claimed) because the pressure differential is higher. This is true even if the net efficiency, which include the Carnot heat-spread inefficiency, is far less. IOW the hydroelectric Dam is NOT a heat engine, as it depends on gravity, not heat differential, so why on earth would you compare the two? However, as mentioned, the major premise of Graneau wrt hydrogen bond-breaking could still be correct (personally I believe that it has some smaller bit of validity)... BUT it is absolutely NOT for the reason cited in this paragraph (the cross-comparison of steam with hydro) which is totally fallacious. Lapses like these are the kind of fuzzy thinking which really detract from what could be a (lesser) degree of true insight; but in the minds of mainstream scientists will be poisoned quickly, as they will pick up on error and then feel justified in belittling the larger hypothesis, as a result. Jones
[Vo]:does anyone else see irony in this?
SAN FRANCISCO Tesla Motors, the Silicon Valley maker of electric sports cars, filed suit in San Mateo Superior Court on Monday against a competing company and two of its employees, saying they stole some of Tesla's design ideas and trade secrets. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/technology/15tesla.html?_r=1themc=thoref=slogin
Re: [Vo]:does anyone else see irony in this?
its like rain on your wedding day. which is to say, very cyclical history, very sad, rather amusing in a dark way, but not irony. On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 12:42 PM, Steven Krivit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: SAN FRANCISCO Tesla Motors, the Silicon Valley maker of electric sports cars, filed suit in San Mateo Superior Court on Monday against a competing company and two of its employees, saying they stole some of Tesla's design ideas and trade secrets. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/technology/15tesla.html?_r=1themc=thoref=slogin -- That which yields isn't always weak.
Re: [Vo]:CNN video of Vertigro algae factory
Howdy Jones, The ole Pelton bucket did have a few surprises to offer using the jet features Richard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelton_wheel
[Vo]:Old News Videos
Does anybody have video footage of any 1989 TV news stories on CF? (I already have the McNeil-Lehrer hour, and also the press conference.) tia s
Re: [Vo]:does anyone else see irony in this?
I see dead people. harry On 15/4/2008 2:42 PM, Steven Krivit wrote: SAN FRANCISCO Tesla Motors, the Silicon Valley maker of electric sports cars, filed suit in San Mateo Superior Court on Monday against a competing company and two of its employees, saying they stole some of Tesla's design ideas and trade secrets. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/technology/15tesla.html?_r=1themc=thore f=slogin http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/technology/15tesla.html?_r=1amp;thamp;e mc=thamp;oref=slogin
[Vo]:Ultracapacitors back in the news again - Zenn Motors article
Article Title: Ultracapacitors: the future of electric cars or the 'cold fusion' of autovation? ZENN Motors says its electric car will cruise for 250 miles on a single five-minute charge. Skeptics cry shenanigans. see: http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0416/p13s01-sten.html Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:does anyone else see irony in this?
Not irony; but, information. I had no idea that White Star was intended to be a PHEV. I always thought it would be a BEV like the Roadster. Now it all makes sense. Why would Ford agree to make the Fusion a roadster coaster? It's not! It still eats dinosaurs. That is, unless you keep the distance below the charge level. What a perfect solution for Tesla. The first PHEV! Thanks, SK! Terry On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Steven Krivit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: SAN FRANCISCO Tesla Motors, the Silicon Valley maker of electric sports cars, filed suit in San Mateo Superior Court on Monday against a competing company and two of its employees, saying they stole some of Tesla's design ideas and trade secrets. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/technology/15tesla.html?_r=1themc=thoref=slogin
Re: [Vo]:Ultracapacitors back in the news again - Zenn Motors article
On Apr 15, 2008, at 1:18 PM, OrionWorks wrote: Article Title: Ultracapacitors: the future of electric cars or the 'cold fusion' of autovation? ZENN Motors says its electric car will cruise for 250 miles on a single five-minute charge. Skeptics cry shenanigans. see: http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0416/p13s01-sten.html Not too difficult if it is all downhill:) http://www.csmonitor.com/photosoftheday/index.php?date=2008/0414/ Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:Ultracapacitors back in the news again - Zenn Motors article
In the words of the SecDef in Independence Day: Mr. President, that's not entirely accurate. Five hours on household supplies. And don't expect to use much else in the house; so, charge! (while you sleep). Terry On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 4:18 PM, OrionWorks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Article Title: Ultracapacitors: the future of electric cars or the 'cold fusion' of autovation? ZENN Motors says its electric car will cruise for 250 miles on a single five-minute charge. Skeptics cry shenanigans. see: http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0416/p13s01-sten.html Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:Re: Ultracapacitors back in the news again - Zenn Motors article
Excellent :)) - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 11:56 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ultracapacitors back in the news again - Zenn Motors article On Apr 15, 2008, at 1:18 PM, OrionWorks wrote: Article Title: Ultracapacitors: the future of electric cars or the 'cold fusion' of autovation? ZENN Motors says its electric car will cruise for 250 miles on a single five-minute charge. Skeptics cry shenanigans. see: http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0416/p13s01-sten.html Not too difficult if it is all downhill:) http://www.csmonitor.com/photosoftheday/index.php?date=2008/0414/ Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:does anyone else see irony in this?
Terry Blanton wrote: Not irony; but, information. I had no idea that White Star was intended to be a PHEV. I always thought it would be a BEV like the Roadster. The thing I find confusing about it is how anyone can claim that using a gasoline-powered motor/generator and electric drive motor combination could be original, proprietary, or theftable. That concept has been in use for decades in diesel locomotives. Surely everyone who hears of hybrid gas-electric vehicles thinks _first_ of a motor/generator and traction engine combination, which is the idea they seem to be claiming was stolen from them; it's about as trivial as any useful design could be. Now, the Prius drive train -- /that/ is a wild new concept, surely worthy of a patent, certainly subject to being stolen; it seems to me to be completely non-obvious. But a mo/gen combo and traction motor? C'mon, haven't these people ever heard of prior art? * * * By the way, are folks here aware of this? http://www.poulsenhybrid.com/ It's a bolt-on plug-in hybrid conversion kit for *any* petroleum powered car. The drive motor connects to one of the rear wheels, thus avoiding any dependency on the particular drive train originally in use in the vehicle. Since the original equipment motor doesn't get out of the way, the converted vehicle will only operate in assist mode, not pure-electric, as far as I can see, but that's still potentially pretty useful if what you're interested in is gas mileage on short trips. The battery pack isn't very large, so the range in electric-assist mode won't be huge, but again, for short trips it could be quite useful -- and because it's operating in assist mode, rather than solely on the electric motor, the range before the batteries go flat may be larger than one might expect. It apparently uses a permanent magnet motor, which, as I understand it, means you get regenerative braking for free (like, you need to work to /avoid/ the effect with a perm. mag. motor). It's cheap, too -- a few thousand total to do the conversion. In contrast, at least in our area, the cost of conversion from gas to pure electric runs around $20,000 (if you pay someone else to do the work). Now it all makes sense. Why would Ford agree to make the Fusion a roadster coaster? It's not! It still eats dinosaurs. That is, unless you keep the distance below the charge level. What a perfect solution for Tesla. The first PHEV! Thanks, SK! Terry On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Steven Krivit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: SAN FRANCISCO Tesla Motors, the Silicon Valley maker of electric sports cars, filed suit in San Mateo Superior Court on Monday against a competing company and two of its employees, saying they stole some of Tesla's design ideas and trade secrets. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/technology/15tesla.html?_r=1themc=thoref=slogin
