Searching \ for 'Path to freedom was: [OT] a definite blood.boile' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=definite+bloodboile
Search entire site for: 'Path to freedom was: [OT] a definite blood.boile'.

Truncated match.
PICList Thread
'Path to freedom was: [OT] a definite blood.boile'
2006\08\05@000722 by Gus S Calabrese

face picon face
All comment by me AGSC are in ^ ^
^To quote from the site ......^
All material, audio, and video are protected by copyright and may not  
be posted elsewhere, altered, quoted, or used in any way without  
express written permission by Path to Freedom (or by other copyright  
holder) and are bound by our terms of condition and copyright    Read  
More

Now, who wouldn’t want to consume a hearty bowl of steaming rice, a  
golden ear of corn, a red, ripe tomato? That’s why GMOs are so  
SINISTER; they speak to our hunger. And they also appeal to our  
wallets. That combination makes for a lethal one-two knock-out punch.  
Would resistance be futile?
^And what is the documented downside ?^

Let's face it. Our world is in deep, deep trouble and we are the  
"troublemakers." We have to make real, difficult changes yesterday.
^ Is that the royal "we" or some other kind ? ^

One step at a time   ^ Yes and in what direction ? ^
^I am am happy to accept these guys approach as long as it is not  
forced on me^
^AGSC^


On 2006-Aug 04, at 13:08hrs PM, Bob Axtell wrote:

James Newtons Massmind wrote:
>
>
> http://www.pathtofreedom.com is the only answer now.
>
> ---
> James.
>
>
>

Nice link, James.

--Bob

2006\08\05@025703 by James Newtons Massmind

face picon face
I don't have huge problems with GM foods. The patenting of life is more of a
problem. Google on farmer percy for more on that. My deal is the war for
oil.

GM was the original inspiration for the people at pathtofreedom.com, but
what they are doing also just about eliminates their consumption of oil. The
bulk of oil use in the USA is actually for fertilizer, pesticides,
mechanized farming and the transportation, storage and packaging of food.
Growing your own reduces your dependency on others and your use of oil. Even
more so than automotive alternatives. PTF does also brew bio for the times
they must use their car.

It's interesting to me how many different things all point to
sustainability.

- Worried about GM foods? Sustainability means eating food you grew for
yourself, your way.

- Worried about peak oil? Organic food from local growers and alternative
fuel cars are sustainable.

- Worried about global warming? All things sustainable reduce your footprint
on the earth.

- Worried about stress, heart attack and beating the rat race? Drop out into
a sustainable lifestyle. It's slow, easy, healthy and... Peaceful. I'll get
my exercise tomorrow loading firewood that a local guy is giving away. No
heating bill this winter. Also no gym membership.

National geographic just did an article on the leading causes of death
today. Heat disease is number one taking 1 of every 5 of us. Cancer does in
1 in 7. Stroke is 1 in 24. Next is automobile accident which has a 1 in 84
chance of killing you. Diabetes is in there
http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds_dying.jpg Americans need more exercise,
healthier diets, less stress and less commuting. Equals? Sustainability!

Another interesting thing is that sustainability = cheap. If you think about
it, the bulk of the cost of just about anything is the energy used to make
it. Think about a new car: You can buy a H2 or a Prius... Or an old Civic.
The new cars are going to require that someone dig up ore, smelt it,
transport it to the factory, cast, weld, form it, assemble and then
transport the finished car to me. The old civic is already here. Compare the
cost of that new hybrid with the cost /difference/ between the gas my old
civic will use compared to the new hybrid. News flash! You will never make
up the purchase price in gas savings! And so, the old Civic is the greenest
car around. And you find that about so many things... If it is old,
repairable, and re-useable, it's probably sustainable. And cheap. I love my
'92 Civic.

---
James.



> {Original Message removed}

2006\08\05@061238 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
James Newtons Massmind wrote:

> Compare the cost of that new hybrid with the cost /difference/ between
> the gas my old civic will use compared to the new hybrid. News flash!
> You will never make up the purchase price in gas savings!

IMO it's not only about cost difference, it's also about resource use
difference. Instead of using the tax agencies' infrastructure to only track
the money flow, we could use it to track something actually useful. So that
we some day have more reliable data to base individual decisions and policy
on, and not only the almost anecdotal reference of a research paper here
and another there.

Gerhard

2006\08\06@054431 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
James Newtons Massmind wrote:
> Another interesting thing is that sustainability = cheap. If you think
> about
> it, the bulk of the cost of just about anything is the energy used to make
> it. Think about a new car: You can buy a H2 or a Prius... Or an old Civic.
> The new cars are going to require that someone dig up ore, smelt it,
> transport it to the factory, cast, weld, form it, assemble and then
> transport the finished car to me. The old civic is already here.

Alternatively, you can melt a couple of old Civics to make an H2. This way,
you don't need to worry about digging up the ore.

> Compare the
> cost of that new hybrid with the cost /difference/ between the gas my old
> civic will use compared to the new hybrid. [...]

I remember a while back one of the presenters at the local SAE chapter
meeting mentioned that storing the braking energy as compressed air achieves
up to 70% efficiency, compared to only 20% for batteries. I do not recall
the reason why hybrids are still using batteries. Safety? Difficult to
achieve smooth acceleration?

Best regards,

Vitaliy

2006\08\06@075459 by Gus S Calabrese

face picon face

On 2006-Aug 06, at 03:44hrs AM, Vitaliy wrote:

James Newtons Massmind wrote:
> Another interesting thing is that sustainability = cheap. If you think
> about
> it, the bulk of the cost of just about anything is the energy used  
> to make
> it. Think about a new car: You can buy a H2 or a Prius... Or an old  
> Civic.
> The new cars are going to require that someone dig up ore, smelt it,
> transport it to the factory, cast, weld, form it, assemble and then
> transport the finished car to me. The old civic is already here.

Alternatively, you can melt a couple of old Civics to make an H2.  
This way,
you don't need to worry about digging up the ore.

> Compare the
> cost of that new hybrid with the cost /difference/ between the gas  
> my old
> civic will use compared to the new hybrid. [...]

I remember a while back one of the presenters at the local SAE chapter
meeting mentioned that storing the braking energy as compressed air  
achieves
up to 70% efficiency, compared to only 20% for batteries. I do not  
recall
the reason why hybrids are still using batteries. Safety? Difficult to
achieve smooth acceleration?

^ Fear of a technology looking stupid if it does not work in the  
field. AGSC ^

Best regards,

Vitaliy

2006\08\06@104230 by Tony Smith

picon face
> > Compare the
> > cost of that new hybrid with the cost /difference/ between
> the gas my
> > old civic will use compared to the new hybrid. [...]
>
> I remember a while back one of the presenters at the local
> SAE chapter meeting mentioned that storing the braking energy
> as compressed air achieves up to 70% efficiency, compared to
> only 20% for batteries. I do not recall the reason why
> hybrids are still using batteries. Safety? Difficult to
> achieve smooth acceleration?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Vitaliy


Energy density.

Battery don't hold much power, but bottles of air contain even less.

Tony

2006\08\06@111718 by Gus S Calabrese

face picon face
Do you mean it would work if you had a big enough bottle and a place
to put it ? ......... Good use for a tesseract
AGSC

On 2006-Aug 06, at 08:42hrs AM, Tony Smith wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Energy density.

Battery don't hold much power, but bottles of air contain even less.

Tony

-

2006\08\06@171841 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

On Aug 6, 2006, at 2:44 AM, Vitaliy wrote:

> I remember a while back one of the presenters at the local SAE chapter
> meeting mentioned that storing the braking energy as
> compressed air achieves up to 70% efficiency, compared to
> only 20% for batteries.

I find both figures hard to believe.  70% is about the number
I see quoted for high efficiency gas turbines (which do NOT
operate on compressed gas; efficiency is dependent on gas input
temperature.)  I'm pretty sure compression is nowhere near that
efficiency.  And battery charging is more than 20% efficient
as well.  They might be comparing an overall cycle efficiency
for electric to a hypothetical compressed gas motor efficiency,
or they might just be wrong...

BillW

2006\08\06@181324 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 14:18:38 -0700, William "Chops" Westfield wrote:

>
> On Aug 6, 2006, at 2:44 AM, Vitaliy wrote:
>
> > I remember a while back one of the presenters at the local SAE chapter
> > meeting mentioned that storing the braking energy as
> > compressed air achieves up to 70% efficiency, compared to
> > only 20% for batteries.
>
> I find both figures hard to believe.  70% is about the number
> I see quoted for high efficiency gas turbines (which do NOT
> operate on compressed gas; efficiency is dependent on gas input
> temperature.)  I'm pretty sure compression is nowhere near that
> efficiency.  And battery charging is more than 20% efficient
> as well.  They might be comparing an overall cycle efficiency
> for electric to a hypothetical compressed gas motor efficiency,
> or they might just be wrong...

Nobody has mentioned hydraulic storage - a hydraulic accumulator consists of a piston in a vertical cylinder on top of a column of
hydraulic fluid, with a heavy weight resting on it.  Hydraulic pumps pump fluid into the system, and any energy that isn't used raises the
weighted piston.  When the energy needs to be retrieved the piston descends, giving back the stored energy.  It's very efficient because
unlike compressed air there's no heat-loss associated with it - only the friction of the piston and the fluid.  If there are no leaks, the
stored energy doesn't degrade over time, like most other storage systems.

Back when there was a "London Hydraulic Power Company" there were hydraulic accumulator towers in a number of places on the system, and at
least one still exists (at Limehouse, although it is no longer functional - they've built a staircase through the weight-case so visitors
can climb to the top!).  Tower Bridge had six of them, four of which were housed in the rounded brickwork bases of the towers.

I don't know how efficient the whole hydraulic pump/accumulator/motor system would be, but it could be worth considering.

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\08\06@182955 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

On Aug 6, 2006, at 3:13 PM, Howard Winter wrote:

> a hydraulic accumulator consists of a piston in a vertical
> cylinder on top of a column of hydraulic fluid, with a heavy
> weight resting on it.

Are we still talking about transportation?  "Heavy weight" and
"mobile" don't mix very well...

BillW

2006\08\06@183733 by Luke Sheridan

flavicon
face
This is basically a kinetic storage battery? I'm not sure about the  
storage system mentioned here but wouldn't you need to raise 36,000  
kg 10 meters to get 1 kwh? Is there some trick to the hydraulic  
system that would let it work with less mass?


On Aug 6, 2006, at 3:13 PM, Howard Winter wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> --

2006\08\07@070348 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Bill,

On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 15:29:48 -0700, William "Chops" Westfield wrote:

>
> On Aug 6, 2006, at 3:13 PM, Howard Winter wrote:
>
> > a hydraulic accumulator consists of a piston in a vertical
> > cylinder on top of a column of hydraulic fluid, with a heavy
> > weight resting on it.
>
> Are we still talking about transportation?  "Heavy weight" and
> "mobile" don't mix very well...

Sorry, I'd wandered off into fixed installations - someone (Bob Axtell?) was talking about buying land in SouthWest USA and building a
self-sufficient energy setup - I was going on from that (also following people mentioning underground flywheels).  For mobile use it's
really hard to come anywhere near chemical storage for energy/weight ratio.

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\08\07@070710 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Howard Winter wrote:
> Nobody has mentioned hydraulic storage - a hydraulic accumulator consists
> of a piston in a vertical cylinder on top of a column of
> hydraulic fluid, with a heavy weight resting on it.  Hydraulic pumps pump
> fluid into the system, and any energy that isn't used raises the
> weighted piston.  When the energy needs to be retrieved the piston
> descends, giving back the stored energy.  It's very efficient because
> unlike compressed air there's no heat-loss associated with it - only the
> friction of the piston and the fluid.  If there are no leaks, the
> stored energy doesn't degrade over time, like most other storage systems.

Howard, I don't know why I said "compressed air." Yes, the braking energy
was indeed stored using a hydraulic accumulator.The presenter's name is Gary
W. Rogers, he is the President and CEO of FEV Engine Technology, Inc. His
presentation was on "green" diesel engines, here is a link to the March 2005
newsletter that has his article:

http://www.saearizona.org/newsletter/march2005low.pdf

The hydraulic accumulator was mentioned only in passing, towards the end of
the presentation, as Mr. Rogers was quickly flipping through the final
slides. The article doesn't mention it at all. :(

I don't recall exactly how it worked, but here's an article which mentions
a similar system:

http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=communique&newsid=3365

Wikipedia has some interesting stuff on hydraulic accumulators:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_accumulator

William Chops Westfield wrote:
<snip>
> [...] battery charging is more than 20% efficient
> as well.  They might be comparing an overall cycle efficiency
> for electric to a hypothetical compressed gas motor efficiency,
> or they might just be wrong...

I believe he was talking about the overall cycle efficiency. The following
article quotes 36% efficiency for a full regenerative cycle:

http://www.hybridcars.com/flywheels.html

Which is higher than 20%, but there are many factors that affect efficiency,
including the rate of braking. The faster I break, the more energy is lost
(charging batteries is a relatively slow process). It seems to me that a
hydraulic accumulator would be more forgiving.

By the way, the main focus of the above article is on flywheels.

Best regards,

Vitaliy

2006\08\07@081442 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Luke,

Hydraulic Accumulator...

On Sun, 6 Aug 2006 15:37:30 -0700, Luke Sheridan wrote:

> This is basically a kinetic storage battery?

Strictly it's a potential energy storage battery - which is why it doesn't degrade with time-stored: height stays the same with no energy
needed to keep it there (it needs force, of course, but since there's no movement and energy = force x distance, that's zero energy).

> I'm not sure about the  
> storage system mentioned here but wouldn't you need to raise 36,000  
> kg 10 meters to get 1 kwh? Is there some trick to the hydraulic  
> system that would let it work with less mass?

Sorry, my physics is so rusty that I can't remember the conversion factors in this, but that "feels" a lot!  The main accumulators for
Tower Bridge had weights of about 100 tonnes, I believe, but I think their full travel was in the range of 6 to 8 metres, and they hed
enough energy to perform at least one full open-close cycle.

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2006\08\07@083753 by VULCAN20

picon face
I have worked with hydraulic systems in both military Aircraft and
industrial equipment.
all of them that I worked with used a air charged accumulator.  They
were a cylinder with a piston in it, Capped at both ends, one end gets
the hyd. fluid, the other gets an charge of nitrogen gas.  regular
compressed air can also be used also but dry nitrogen is better
This type could be made very light weight. It would depend on much
pressure was needed, the volume of fluid .  Higher system pressure would
cause the tube to be made of heavier material.

Also this type can be mounted in any position and still work OK.

{Quote hidden}

2006\08\07@084313 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>Hydraulic Accumulator...
>
>> This is basically a kinetic storage battery?
>
>Strictly it's a potential energy storage battery -
>which is why it doesn't degrade with time-stored:
>height stays the same with no energy

Provided there is no leakage past the pump or piston ...

2006\08\07@132051 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Howard Winter wrote:

>> I'm not sure about the storage system mentioned here but wouldn't you
>> need to raise 36,000 kg 10 meters to get 1 kwh? Is there some trick to
>> the hydraulic system that would let it work with less mass?
>
> Sorry, my physics is so rusty that I can't remember the conversion
> factors in this,

Unless you want to use weird units, there are no conversion factors (unless
you consider the gravity acceleration a conversion factor):

E = f x d
 = 36'000 kg x g x 10 m
 = 3.53 MJ
 = 3.53 MWs
 = 3530 kWs
 ~= 1 kWh

> The main accumulators for Tower Bridge had weights of about 100 tonnes, I
> believe, but I think their full travel was in the range of 6 to 8
> metres, and they hed enough energy to perform at least one full
> open-close cycle.

E = 100'000 kg x g x 8 m
 ~= 8 MJ
 ~= 2.2 kWh

Gerhard

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2006 , 2007 only
- Today
- New search...