New BBC soap

"Indy Jess John" wrote in message
...
On 28/07/2019 10:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Oh sure. Greentalk is always ******** anyway.
CO2 is not what causes climate to change.

Ã… Prius isnt any better than a good turbo diesel on fuel economy. Or I
suspect, emissions

Top Gear (the original one with Jeremy Clarkson) did a track comparison
between a Prius and a BMW M3. At best lap time speeds, the Prius fuel
consumption exceeded the BMW's by quite a margin.

The thing that puzzles me is why hybrids always seem to have the fuelled
engine coupled up for traction. A little air-cooled engine[1] driving a
generator to charge the battery would run at a constant speed so that
there isn't the peaks and troughs of exhaust emissions, and provided the
maximum output from the generator was sufficient to replace what is taken
out of the battery at motorway cruising speed, you would get a very long
range for a relatively small amount of fuel. Uphill the battery would
gradually run down, but downhill (or stationary) the generator would
replace the charge lost. Without all the transmission system needed for
traction or the water needed for cooling, the engine itself wouldn't weigh
much.

There is at least one of those, forget the model.

[1] The Volkswagen Beetle has proved that air cooling is perfectly viable
for road passenger transport, and the engine heat in the air passing over
the engine would be available for heating the passenger compartment in the
winter, saving the power drain on the batteries currently experienced in
purely EV transport. A diesel engine is ideally suited to steady speed
running (the engines in cargo ships typically run at a constant speed for
days on end) and because this type of hybrid doesn't have to be designed
for a reasonable rate of acceleration, its fuel demands would be low.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 28/07/2019 11:08, Indy Jess John wrote:
1] The Volkswagen Beetle has proved that air cooling is perfectly viable
for road passenger transport,

So long as you dint mind new ends every 50,000 miles and line boring the
blck and re grinding the crank every 80,000

Mine never needed either.

On 29/07/2019 01:04, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Bill Wright
writes:
On 28/07/2019 08:58, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

The main thing is to connect and disconnect with the power off:

Where do you turn it off then?

Bill

Within the "pump" (charger). You connect with no power flowing, then
when the charger detects that the connection is sound, it turns itself
on. Much like those people who turn off a BS1363 ("13A") socket at the
socket before plugging in. Or, for a conventional petrol/Diesel pump,
you make sure the fuel is not flowing until you have "plugged it in" to
your car, don't you - you don't spray it all over the place.

But there has to be a moment when a switch or relay connects the power.

Bill

In message , Bill Wright
writes
On 29/07/2019 01:04, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Bill Wright
writes:
On 28/07/2019 08:58, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

The main thing is to connect and disconnect with the power off:

Where do you turn it off then?

Bill
Within the "pump" (charger). You connect with no power flowing, then
when the charger detects that the connection is sound, it turns itself
on. Much like those people who turn off a BS1363 ("13A") socket at the
socket before plugging in. Or, for a conventional petrol/Diesel pump,
you make sure the fuel is not flowing until you have "plugged it in"
to your car, don't you - you don't spray it all over the place.

But there has to be a moment when a switch or relay connects the power.

It's a case of using the 'right tool for the job'. Until it is fully
inserted, sliding a plug unto a socket usually results in an only
partial, high-resistance contact - with the obvious resulting damage to
the surfaces. An on-off switch is usually designed to have a fast snap
action, preventing such damage. The rule is 'Make sure the switch is
off. Plug it in. Switch it on. When finished, switch it off, then unplug
it'.
--
Ian

"Pamela" wrote in message
...
On 10:40 28 Jul 2019, "John Black" wrote:
"Pamela" wrote in message
...
On 19:31 26 Jul 2019, "NY" wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Got a scholarship to Eton.

I wouldnt care to bet on what Boris doesnt understand. A lot less than
he lets on.

Yes, I too think that the silly-buffoon persona that he cultivates is a
ruse, to disarm people into thinking that he is harmless - before he
delivers the killer blow.

I too once thought that. I have come to realise behind Boris's bufoon
mask
lies a bufoon.

He's not totally incapable but that still doesn't make him capable, as
his
track record shows.

He did manage to get to be PM.

Lying and cheating can sometimes be effective in the short term - look at
Trump.

That’s not how he got to be PM.

On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 13:37:05 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:



There is at least one of those, forget the model.

Doesn't matter! At least you had another opportunity to open your senile
gob. And THAT's what matters! Right, senile idiot? G

--
addressing nym-shifting senile Rodent:
"You on the other hand are a heavyweight bull****ter who demonstrates
your particular prowess at it every day."
MID:

On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 03:16:23 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Fredxx
writes:
[]
While I accept a petrol engine efficiency is highest at full throttle
and a specific rpm, a diesel engine is more efficient at all loads.

I would suggest the advantage of a petrol hybrid compared to a diesel
is very questionable.

For stop-start working (buses, delivery vehicles, and arguably congested
urban driving in general), I suspect anything with regenerative braking
will be more efficient than anything without.

Electric with Diesel top-up is probably best of all, at least for urban.


Stagecoach in Manchester disagrees with you. The new all electric
buses will be used in routes in the city. According to Alexander
Dennis the all electric buses have a range of 160 miles.

See
https://www.alexander-dennis.com/med...e-may-2019.pdf
https://www.sustainable-bus.com/news...00-ev-adl-byd/

--
brightside S9

On 29/07/2019 02:02, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes:
On 28/07/2019 10:05, Norman Wells wrote:
On 28/07/2019 09:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 28/07/2019 08:27, Norman Wells wrote:
On 28/07/2019 00:56, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

Diesel-electric hybrids would have been an excellent transitional
phase, what with their lower consumption anyway, and Diesels being
more suited to the backup-charging type use (that's why they use
them in buses). (Yes, I know there are a few D-H cars. But
expensive, and probably not now going to get much development,
with Diesel being such a hate target.)

The trouble with any hybrids is that you have to have to have two
heavy motive power units, an engine and a battery, and you're
inefficiently carting both around all the time when only using one.

No. It's actually better than that. In the same way as turbocharging
allows a small efficient cruise engine to crank out the overtaking
orÂ* hill climbing power, so does a battery allow a small cruise
engine theÂ* ability to overtake/climb hills as well.
Â*You've still got to lug the battery and the engine up the hill.

But the weight of the total power train is no higher than a
conventional one.

Are you sure - electric motor + fuel motor + battery weighs less than
just a fuel motor? (Plus there's the volume they require, too.)
-massive gearbox. -possibly differential. -starter battery...

I am not siure if you are simply trolling, but why would a motor that
need only deliver 50bhp be as heavy as one that delivers 200bhp?



IF the battery and engine are small. Thats teh point. You use the
engine at its most efficeint [oint, uyou use the batteryt for peak
power which it does brilliantly, nd for braking, .

That is a good point. (I'm in favour of hybrids - just fully aware that
they're oversold. [And the opposition also oversells.])

I'm not really in favour of them - especially subsidised.

Sunsidising technology concelas its (lack of) value



And regenerative braking adds a lot - especially in town - allowing
smaller 'real' brakes.
Â*That's an advantage of all electric cars in town too.
Â*My objection is the green credentials claimed for hybrids.

Oh sure. Greentalk is always ******** anyway.

Agreed a lot of it is.

CO2 is not what causes climate to change.

It's one of the "greenhouse gases", the presence of more of which _does_
reduce heat radiation from the planet; I'm willing to accept that. How
_significant_ it is, both in isolation and in comparison to other such,
I don't know. (I _believe_ methane is far more significant, and that
comes mostly from burping cows, or possibly even ocean algae or from
below.)

Absent of other fcatirs CO2 would the planet about 1C for every
doubling. Whicg is truly insifnicicant.,

In orfer to make it scary, they multiplied it by 'positive feedback;'
that mystriously does not apply to anything else except CO2. Even though
teh proposed mecahnism (water vapour ) must apply to any temepreture
changes at all.

That the levels of feed back they propose
- would make volacnic erupttins like pinatubuo throw us into an ice age
- make the planet so historically unstable that life would never have
started
- create effects that have never been found


is ignored

As is te fact taht teh stqwement that the vast majority of modern
waqrning is down to CO2 incerase' cannot be true, simncet shape of the
grohs of te tow paremetsr show no correltaion if the span from saty
1897-0 tp 2019 are used to compare. Its not just that they are out by
vqalue, and or slope, but they are a *completely different shape*.

Intridicing some other factor than CO2 top ecplain it begs the question
of why the origibal assumption is true. Clearly CO2 is NOT the major
friver of climate, then





Ã… Prius isnt any better than a good turbo diesel on fuel economy. Or I
suspect, emissions

I doubt it's not a lot better in stop-start urban driving. On any long
journey, let alone constant-speed testing, I'd happily believe it is
worse, if only because of the extra weight (two engines plus battery).

Prius probaly better at urban driving, buy not on serious journeys. A
friend has one., He gets about 50mpg - I darent tell him that skoda
diesels beat that.





--
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow witted
man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest
thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly
persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid
before him."

- Leo Tolstoy

On 29/07/2019 02:05, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Tim Streater
writes:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 28/07/2019 10:05, Norman Wells wrote:
On 28/07/2019 09:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 28/07/2019 08:27, Norman Wells wrote:
On 28/07/2019 00:56, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

Diesel-electric hybrids would have been an excellent transitional
phase, what with their lower consumption anyway, and Diesels
being more suited to the backup-charging type use (that's why
they use them in buses). (Yes, I know there are a few D-H cars.
But expensive, and probably not now going to get much
development, withÂ* Diesel being such a hate target.)

The trouble with any hybrids is that you have to have to have two
heavy motive power units, an engine and a battery, and you're
inefficiently carting both around all the time when only using one.

No. It's actually better than that. In the same way as
turbochargingÂ* allows a small efficient cruise engine to crank out
the overtakingÂ* orÂ* hill climbing power, so does a battery allow a
small cruise engine theÂ* ability to overtake/climb hills as well.
Â*You've still got to lug the battery and the engine up the hill.

But the weight of the total power train is no higher than a
conventional one.

Mine doesn't have a starter motor or alternator.

How does it start? Or are you talking about a wholly-electric vehicle.
In general the elctric traction motors will start the engine. Obviously
any hybrid must have sone form of generator and it will be technically
an alternator, It just wint be an obvious bolt on component.




--
Any fool can believe in principles - and most of them do!

On 29/07/2019 02:37, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
Have you figures? I could believe that there is _some_ inefficiency in
the conversions (in fact I'd distrust anyone who claimed otherwise), but
are we talking conversion efficiency of 90-95%, or 30-50%? Plus there's
the point about the fuel engine always being run at its most efficient
speed.
[]

Grid effiency varies with load. Generally 85%-95%. Similar efficency
applies to electric motors. Battery turnround effuciency probably around
90%.

Combine those with a CCGT power staion at 60% efficiency and you have
gas to shaft efficiency of 43%, before regen braking is added.

If you are chargong them from a coal power station at 37%, they are more
polluting

Anbd of course any (exhaust) pollutin is shifted to the power station
out of the city.

leaving only carbon particulates from the tyres and brakes

Turbo diesels is around similar peak efficiencies though 30% is more likley.

What thi shopws is that the real gains from BEVS are in manufacturers
profits and on street pollution.

Unless you are charging them from Nuclear power, there is almost no
emissions gains - just emissions transfer to te power staion.

(I odntcount windmills and solar panels as in anyway relevant to anythig)

--
“The fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is that
the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."

- Bertrand Russell