Re: Electric locomotion will replace internal combustion

[Mark]

On Sep 22, 12:35*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:

> > Electric cars can now go from 150 - 200 miles on a single charge.
>
> In you imagination.

http://www.wlwt.com/r/17226175/detail.html

> Or in other words, they are looking for investor money and the only car
> that exists is a one off, hand made, prototype.

How do you know how many they've made thus far? Why
do you think prototyping isn't the standard method?

Automotive Prototyping-
"The design process for new or improved automotive parts or assemblies
includes the important step of producing, examining, and testing a
physical prototype."

http://www.protocam.com/html/automotive.html

Why, if they only want money, would they have actually
performed advanced electrical engineering and
applied mathematics which solved the difficult
criteria to satisfy this remarkable threshold which
the world community has requested and which they
have already been paid for? Why prove an advanced
breakthrough which has all the funded support one
could want from the executive branch of our govt?

Wouldn't it be much, much more lucrative to simply
engineer wickets and gizmos and hawk them on
infomercials like Ron Popeil? Why do you assert
that everyone working on advanced new technology
involving renewable resources is a disingenuous
charlatan? If all these people are insincere liars
and thieves, why doesn't the general accounting
office or a consumer protection advocacy group
file lawsuits against to stop this pilfering of our
tax dollars?

Are you unable to see any advantages to this
described and proven technology if battery
technology was superior to fossil fuels, even
if viewed hypothetically?

---
Mark

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 22, 12:35Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>
>> > Electric cars can now go from 150 - 200 miles on a single charge.
>>
>> In you imagination.
>
> http://www.wlwt.com/r/17226175/detail.html
>
>> Or in other words, they are looking for investor money and the only car
>> that exists is a one off, hand made, prototype.
>
> How do you know how many they've made thus far?

Because I can read and you can't.

From your own link:

"Only one prototype has been produced"

"the car to travel 150 miles on one battery charge"

So, there is one car, not "cars", that is a prototype that maybe can go
150 miles on a single charge, not "go from 150 - 200 miles" as you stated.

Troll.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark]

On Sep 22, 2:13*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 22, 12:35*pm, wrote:
> >> Mark > wrote:
>
> >> > Electric cars can now go from 150 - 200 miles on a single charge.
>
> >> In you imagination.
>
> >http://www.wlwt.com/r/17226175/detail.html
>
> >> Or in other words, they are looking for investor money and the only car
> >> that exists is a one off, hand made, prototype.
>
> > How do you know how many they've made thus far?
>
> Because I can read and you can't.
>
> From your own link:
>
> "Only one prototype has been produced"
>
> "the car to travel 150 miles on one battery charge"
>
> So, there is one car, not "cars",

There was one car made at the time that website was
released. But you claim, "There is only one car in
existence."

So I ask you, how do you know how many more
cars they've made now? And furthermore, I didn't
bother to post other cars that match or exceed that
performance. There are many. So, how do you know
there is only one in existence? Simple question.
Cite.

> that is a prototype that maybe can go
> 150 miles on a single charge, not "go from
>150 - 200 miles" as you stated.

I never said that car could get 200 miles on a
single charge. I was referring to different
electric cars. Having comprehension problems?

> Troll.

Sour grapes.

Trolls cross-post to garner the largest possible
audience. I don't. Trolls cannot stand on facts.
I can. (you can't) Trolls use many different
identities to hide behind their cowardice. I use
one name. It is Mark. That is my name.

Furthermore, a search of the archives of your
posting will uncover at least one thread where
a nice gentleman is trying to discuss something
with you, and with every post he submits, your
stock "bully" answer to that nice man was,
"You're an idiot", and "You're still an idiot".

You see Jimmy boy, you're basically a bully.
You seek out folks that you think you can
bully around. I knew this from the get-go. I
suckered you in to give you this whipping.
What I failed to tell you...is that my I.Q. is
probably double yours. You will never win
against me. And furthermore, I will readily
admit when I'm wrong. You can't do that, so
you keep shoveling, trying to get to the top
of the hole.

I'm a very low time pilot. You've got me beat
there hands down. Congratulations. My
time-machine is in the shop.

---
Mark
"No one can modify a LSA!" - Jim Perrino
"Anyone can modify an LSA" - Federal Aviation Administration

> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 22, 2:13Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > On Sep 22, 12:35Â*pm, wrote:
>> >> Mark > wrote:
>>
>> >> > Electric cars can now go from 150 - 200 miles on a single charge.
>>
>> >> In you imagination.
>>
>> >http://www.wlwt.com/r/17226175/detail.html
>>
>> >> Or in other words, they are looking for investor money and the only car
>> >> that exists is a one off, hand made, prototype.
>>
>> > How do you know how many they've made thus far?
>>
>> Because I can read and you can't.
>>
>> From your own link:
>>
>> "Only one prototype has been produced"
>>
>> "the car to travel 150 miles on one battery charge"
>>
>> So, there is one car, not "cars",
>
> There was one car made at the time that website was
> released. But you claim, "There is only one car in
> existence."
>
> So I ask you, how do you know how many more
> cars they've made now?

You really should read your own links.

They never planned to build cars, they were going to retrofit Saturns.

Saturn halted production on October 1, 2009.

> And furthermore, I didn't
> bother to post other cars that match or exceed that
> performance. There are many.

So you keep saying, but if you could actually find any, you would post
them and go neener, neener, neener.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark]

On Sep 22, 5:12*pm, wrote:

> > And furthermore, I didn't
> > bother to post other cars that match or exceed that
> > performance. There are many.
>
> So you keep saying, but if you could actually find any, you would post
> them and go neener, neener, neener.

Not interested. The 150 mile technology is old news.
The 200 mile technology is old news. Boring old news.

Yes there are other 150 mile cars, such as this:
http://www.fashionfunky.com/2008/07/electric_car_goes_150_miles_fo.php

This doesn't interest me.

The Tesla Motors Model S line...goes 300 miles. That's
respectable.

What I've been hollerin' about for the future, is something
like 500 miles on a single charge. The project is ambitious
but the science is sound.

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/around-town/cars/Electric_car_batteries_with_500-mile_range_on_the_way_-63290817.html

---
Mark





> --
> Jim Pennino

[Mark]

On Sep 23, 1:51*am, Mark > wrote:

> What I've been hollerin' about for the future, is something
> like 500 miles on a single charge. *The project is ambitious
> but the science is sound.
>
> http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/around-town/cars/Electric_car_batterie...
>
> ---

Meant to use this source.

http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/22780/

[Mark]

On Sep 23, 1:56*am, Mark > wrote:

> Meant to use this source.
>
> http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/22780/

Remember my theoretical cessna 152 scenerio, that flys above
flight levels? With neglible battery weight, yet seemingly
unlimited power? You know, the "preposterous" idea that
only a ridiculous starry eyed person would think?

Looks like I'm not alone.
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/2780/

---
Mark

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 23, 1:56Â*am, Mark > wrote:
>
>> Meant to use this source.
>>
>> http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/22780/
>
> Remember my theoretical cessna 152 scenerio, that flys above
> flight levels? With neglible battery weight, yet seemingly
> unlimited power? You know, the "preposterous" idea that
> only a ridiculous starry eyed person would think?
>
> Looks like I'm not alone.
> http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/2780/

Yet another broken link.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 23, 1:51Â*am, Mark > wrote:
>
>> What I've been hollerin' about for the future, is something
>> like 500 miles on a single charge. Â*The project is ambitious
>> but the science is sound.
>>
>> http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/around-town/cars/Electric_car_batterie...
>>
>> ---
>
> Meant to use this source.
>
> http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/22780/

It has been over a year, where's the batteries?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 22, 5:12Â*pm, wrote:
>
>> > And furthermore, I didn't
>> > bother to post other cars that match or exceed that
>> > performance. There are many.
>>
>> So you keep saying, but if you could actually find any, you would post
>> them and go neener, neener, neener.
>
> Not interested. The 150 mile technology is old news.
> The 200 mile technology is old news. Boring old news.

In other words, there is nothing in production that makes even the 120
miles you claim.

People can't drive press releases about one off prototypes.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark]

On Sep 23, 12:30*pm, wrote:

> In other words, there is nothing in production that makes even the 120
> miles you claim.

>Jim Pennino

300 ÷ 120 = 2.5

---
Mark

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 23, 12:30Â*pm, wrote:
>
>> In other words, there is nothing in production that makes even the 120
>> miles you claim.
>
>>Jim Pennino
>
> 300 ÷ 120 = 2.5
>
> ---
> Mark

So now you are claiming that there is a pure electric car in production
that gets 300 miles to a charge?

Where is it?



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark]

On Sep 24, 1:40*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 23, 12:30*pm, wrote:
>
> >> In other words, there is nothing in production that makes even the 120
> >> miles you claim.
>
> >>Jim Pennino
>
> > 300 ÷ 120 = 2.5
>
> > ---
> > Mark
>
> So now you are claiming that there is a pure electric car in production
> that gets 300 miles to a charge?
>
> Where is it?
>
> --
> Jim Pennino

Oh, I think you may find it about 8 posts
back above this one, where I told you the first
time. However, they frequently exceed that
distance.

---
Mark

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 24, 1:40Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > On Sep 23, 12:30Â*pm, wrote:
>>
>> >> In other words, there is nothing in production that makes even the 120
>> >> miles you claim.
>>
>> >>Jim Pennino
>>
>> > 300 ÷ 120 = 2.5
>>
>> > ---
>> > Mark
>>
>> So now you are claiming that there is a pure electric car in production
>> that gets 300 miles to a charge?
>>
>> Where is it?
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>
> Oh, I think you may find it about 8 posts
> back above this one, where I told you the first
> time. However, they frequently exceed that
> distance.
>
> ---
> Mark

I'm not going back through all your broken links.

Put up or shut up.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jim Logajan]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 24, 1:40*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > On Sep 23, 12:30*pm, wrote:
>>
>> >> In other words, there is nothing in production that makes even the
>> >> 120 miles you claim.
>>
>> >>Jim Pennino
>>
>> > 300 ÷ 120 = 2.5
>>
>> > ---
>> > Mark
>>
>> So now you are claiming that there is a pure electric car in
>> production that gets 300 miles to a charge?
>>
>> Where is it?
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>
> Oh, I think you may find it about 8 posts
> back above this one, where I told you the first
> time. However, they frequently exceed that
> distance.

The Tesla Roadster only claims 245 miles/charge.
The Tesla Model S claims > 300 miles/charge, but Tesla says it wont be
available till 2012.

Oh yeah - the Tesla Roadster has a list price of $109,000.
The Tesla Model S is listed at $56,500.
There is a $7500 tax incentive that drops those prices a little.

You can buy a pretty nice plane for $109k.

[Mark]

On Sep 24, 2:18*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 24, 1:40*pm, wrote:
> >> Mark > wrote:
> >> > On Sep 23, 12:30*pm, wrote:
>
> >> >> In other words, there is nothing in production that makes even the 120
> >> >> miles you claim.
>
> >> >>Jim Pennino
>
> >> > 300 ÷ 120 = 2.5
>
> >> > ---
> >> > Mark
>
> >> So now you are claiming that there is a pure electric car in production
> >> that gets 300 miles to a charge?
>
> >> Where is it?
>
> >> --
> >> Jim Pennino
>
> > Oh, I think you may find it about 8 posts
> > back above this one, where I told you the first
> > time. However, they frequently exceed that
> > distance.
>
> > ---
> > Mark
>
> I'm not going back through all your broken links.
>
> Put up or shut up.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino

????? It isn't a link. I gave you the manufacturer's
name and model. It goes 300 miles on a charge.
It costs less than my truck did.

---
Mark

[Mark]

On Sep 24, 2:37*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 24, 1:40*pm, wrote:
> >> Mark > wrote:
> >> > On Sep 23, 12:30*pm, wrote:
>
> >> >> In other words, there is nothing in production that makes even the
> >> >> 120 miles you claim.
>
> >> >>Jim Pennino
>
> >> > 300 ÷ 120 = 2.5
>
> >> > ---
> >> > Mark
>
> >> So now you are claiming that there is a pure electric car in
> >> production that gets 300 miles to a charge?
>
> >> Where is it?
>
> >> --
> >> Jim Pennino
>
> > Oh, I think you may find it about 8 posts
> > back above this one, where I told you the first
> > time. However, they frequently exceed that
> > distance.
>
> The Tesla Roadster only claims 245 miles/charge.
> The Tesla Model S claims > 300 miles/charge, but Tesla says it wont be
> available till 2012.
>
> Oh yeah - the Tesla Roadster has a list price of $109,000.
> The Tesla Model S is listed at $56,500.
> There is a $7500 tax incentive that drops those prices a little.
>
> You can buy a pretty nice plane for $109k.

At this juncture we're discussing whether the technology
exists, and if it's going mainstream.

In 1969 I paid $75.00 for a calculator. It had 7 functions...
[ On, Off, Add, Subtract, Multiply, Divide, and Clear ]

----
Mark

[Mark]

On Sep 24, 2:18*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 24, 1:40*pm, wrote:
> >> Mark > wrote:
> >> > On Sep 23, 12:30*pm, wrote:
>
> >> >> In other words, there is nothing in production that makes even the 120
> >> >> miles you claim.
>
> >> >>Jim Pennino
>
> >> > 300 ÷ 120 = 2.5
>
> >> > ---
> >> > Mark
>
> >> So now you are claiming that there is a pure electric car in production
> >> that gets 300 miles to a charge?
>
> >> Where is it?
>
> >> --
> >> Jim Pennino
>
> > Oh, I think you may find it about 8 posts
> > back above this one, where I told you the first
> > time. However, they frequently exceed that
> > distance.
>
> > ---
> > Mark
>
> I'm not going back through all your broken links.

> Put up or shut up.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino

Actually, it wasn't "all your broken links". The one
that so greatly disturbed and upset you a couple of
posts back, had the same link, in the same post,
just above it, which worked. I simply hand typed
the same link below it, ommitting one number.
The comparison was hard to miss.

----
Mark

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 24, 2:37Â*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > On Sep 24, 1:40Â*pm, wrote:
>> >> Mark > wrote:
>> >> > On Sep 23, 12:30Â*pm, wrote:
>>
>> >> >> In other words, there is nothing in production that makes even the
>> >> >> 120 miles you claim.
>>
>> >> >>Jim Pennino
>>
>> >> > 300 ÷ 120 = 2.5
>>
>> >> > ---
>> >> > Mark
>>
>> >> So now you are claiming that there is a pure electric car in
>> >> production that gets 300 miles to a charge?
>>
>> >> Where is it?
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Jim Pennino
>>
>> > Oh, I think you may find it about 8 posts
>> > back above this one, where I told you the first
>> > time. However, they frequently exceed that
>> > distance.
>>
>> The Tesla Roadster only claims 245 miles/charge.
>> The Tesla Model S claims > 300 miles/charge, but Tesla says it wont be
>> available till 2012.
>>
>> Oh yeah - the Tesla Roadster has a list price of $109,000.
>> The Tesla Model S is listed at $56,500.
>> There is a $7500 tax incentive that drops those prices a little.
>>
>> You can buy a pretty nice plane for $109k.
>
> At this juncture we're discussing whether the technology
> exists, and if it's going mainstream.

No, where are discussing whether or not the technology is on the market
with a side discussion of how affordable it is if it is on the market.

>
> In 1969 I paid $75.00 for a calculator. It had 7 functions...
> [ On, Off, Add, Subtract, Multiply, Divide, and Clear ]

Complex chips were infant technology in 1969.

Batteries and electric motors are mature technologies.

All the improvements in both in the last few decades have been in the area
of expensive materials engineering, i.e. rare earth elements.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 24, 2:18Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > On Sep 24, 1:40Â*pm, wrote:
>> >> Mark > wrote:
>> >> > On Sep 23, 12:30Â*pm, wrote:
>>
>> >> >> In other words, there is nothing in production that makes even the 120
>> >> >> miles you claim.
>>
>> >> >>Jim Pennino
>>
>> >> > 300 ÷ 120 = 2.5
>>
>> >> > ---
>> >> > Mark
>>
>> >> So now you are claiming that there is a pure electric car in production
>> >> that gets 300 miles to a charge?
>>
>> >> Where is it?
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Jim Pennino
>>
>> > Oh, I think you may find it about 8 posts
>> > back above this one, where I told you the first
>> > time. However, they frequently exceed that
>> > distance.
>>
>> > ---
>> > Mark
>>
>> I'm not going back through all your broken links.
>>
>> Put up or shut up.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>
> ????? It isn't a link. I gave you the manufacturer's
> name and model. It goes 300 miles on a charge.
> It costs less than my truck did.

If you actually had something it would have been easier for you to just
repost the make and model instead of hand waving about it.

Put up or shut up.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark]

On Sep 24, 4:16*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 24, 2:18*pm, wrote:
> >> Mark > wrote:
> >> > On Sep 24, 1:40*pm, wrote:
> >> >> Mark > wrote:
> >> >> > On Sep 23, 12:30*pm, wrote:
>
> >> >> >> In other words, there is nothing in production that makes even the 120
> >> >> >> miles you claim.
>
> >> >> >>Jim Pennino
>
> >> >> > 300 ÷ 120 = 2.5
>
> >> >> > ---
> >> >> > Mark
>
> >> >> So now you are claiming that there is a pure electric car in production
> >> >> that gets 300 miles to a charge?
>
> >> >> Where is it?
>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Jim Pennino
>
> >> > Oh, I think you may find it about 8 posts
> >> > back above this one, where I told you the first
> >> > time. However, they frequently exceed that
> >> > distance.
>
> >> > ---
> >> > Mark
>
> >> I'm not going back through all your broken links.
>
> >> Put up or shut up.
>
> >> --
> >> Jim Pennino
>
> > ????? *It isn't a link. I gave you the manufacturer's
> > name and model. It goes 300 miles on a charge.
> > It costs less than my truck did.
>
> If you actually had something it would have been easier for you to just
> repost the make and model instead of hand waving about it.
>
> Put up or shut up.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino


Well...Jim...it does get tiring having to repeat myself
over and over and over, when you've just not read what
I've already told you. Seems this is a reoccuring pattern.
I mean, I even counted for you to pinpoint it.

I don't know what arm-waving is. I'm a distance
swimmer, so, technically you're kinda right.

---
Mark

[Mark]

On Sep 24, 4:15*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 24, 2:37*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> >> Mark > wrote:
> >> > On Sep 24, 1:40*pm, wrote:
> >> >> Mark > wrote:
> >> >> > On Sep 23, 12:30*pm, wrote:
>
> >> >> >> In other words, there is nothing in production that makes even the
> >> >> >> 120 miles you claim.
>
> >> >> >>Jim Pennino
>
> >> >> > 300 ÷ 120 = 2.5
>
> >> >> > ---
> >> >> > Mark
>
> >> >> So now you are claiming that there is a pure electric car in
> >> >> production that gets 300 miles to a charge?
>
> >> >> Where is it?
>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Jim Pennino
>
> >> > Oh, I think you may find it about 8 posts
> >> > back above this one, where I told you the first
> >> > time. However, they frequently exceed that
> >> > distance.
>
> >> The Tesla Roadster only claims 245 miles/charge.
> >> The Tesla Model S claims > 300 miles/charge, but Tesla says it wont be
> >> available till 2012.
>
> >> Oh yeah - the Tesla Roadster has a list price of $109,000.
> >> The Tesla Model S is listed at $56,500.
> >> There is a $7500 tax incentive that drops those prices a little.
>
> >> You can buy a pretty nice plane for $109k.
>
> > At this juncture we're discussing whether the technology
> > exists, and if it's going mainstream.
>
> No, where are discussing whether or not the technology is on the market
> with a side discussion of how affordable it is if it is on the market.

I'm not smart enough to do that. I'll have to restrict myself
to one topic, establish reality, then pick another. Your main
refute thus far has been that it is technologically impossible.
You've said it over and over.

Is this still your stance on an electric car? That they won't
exceed 40 miles on a charge, and never will, therefore we'll
never see them on the roads?

> > In 1969 I paid $75.00 for a calculator. It had 7 functions...
> > [ On, Off, Add, Subtract, Multiply, Divide, and Clear ]
>
> Complex chips were infant technology in 1969.

Yes, that's the way I remember it.

> Batteries and electric motors are mature technologies.

So are wheels. They predate the pyramids. But I
wouldn't put one of their wheels on my truck.

> All the improvements in both in the last few decades have been in the area
> of expensive materials engineering, i.e. rare earth elements.

Yes, you're absolutely correct. I believe the greater minds
today are thinking beyond Al-air (aluminum air) or Li-air
(lithium air) batteries. The military uses Al-batteries now,
but then, our national debt is 13 trillion dollars, so what
does that tell you.

Smart money is betting on carbon nano-engineering.
Does Walmart carry these today on isle 12? No. We're
basically talking about a NEW INVENTION here. Same
thing with Li-air, new invention. Are these mature
technologies? Of course not. Not even close. The anology
to a 1969 calculator is...apples to apples.

> --
> Jim Pennino

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 24, 4:16Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > On Sep 24, 2:18Â*pm, wrote:
>> >> Mark > wrote:
>> >> > On Sep 24, 1:40Â*pm, wrote:
>> >> >> Mark > wrote:
>> >> >> > On Sep 23, 12:30Â*pm, wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> In other words, there is nothing in production that makes even the 120
>> >> >> >> miles you claim.
>>
>> >> >> >>Jim Pennino
>>
>> >> >> > 300 ÷ 120 = 2.5
>>
>> >> >> > ---
>> >> >> > Mark
>>
>> >> >> So now you are claiming that there is a pure electric car in production
>> >> >> that gets 300 miles to a charge?
>>
>> >> >> Where is it?
>>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Jim Pennino
>>
>> >> > Oh, I think you may find it about 8 posts
>> >> > back above this one, where I told you the first
>> >> > time. However, they frequently exceed that
>> >> > distance.
>>
>> >> > ---
>> >> > Mark
>>
>> >> I'm not going back through all your broken links.
>>
>> >> Put up or shut up.
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Jim Pennino
>>
>> > ????? Â*It isn't a link. I gave you the manufacturer's
>> > name and model. It goes 300 miles on a charge.
>> > It costs less than my truck did.
>>
>> If you actually had something it would have been easier for you to just
>> repost the make and model instead of hand waving about it.
>>
>> Put up or shut up.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>
>
> Well...Jim...it does get tiring having to repeat myself
> over and over and over, when you've just not read what
> I've already told you. Seems this is a reoccuring pattern.
> I mean, I even counted for you to pinpoint it.
>
> I don't know what arm-waving is. I'm a distance
> swimmer, so, technically you're kinda right.

Can't even find it yourself, can you?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 24, 4:15Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > On Sep 24, 2:37Â*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> >> Mark > wrote:
>> >> > On Sep 24, 1:40Â*pm, wrote:
>> >> >> Mark > wrote:
>> >> >> > On Sep 23, 12:30Â*pm, wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> In other words, there is nothing in production that makes even the
>> >> >> >> 120 miles you claim.
>>
>> >> >> >>Jim Pennino
>>
>> >> >> > 300 ÷ 120 = 2.5
>>
>> >> >> > ---
>> >> >> > Mark
>>
>> >> >> So now you are claiming that there is a pure electric car in
>> >> >> production that gets 300 miles to a charge?
>>
>> >> >> Where is it?
>>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Jim Pennino
>>
>> >> > Oh, I think you may find it about 8 posts
>> >> > back above this one, where I told you the first
>> >> > time. However, they frequently exceed that
>> >> > distance.
>>
>> >> The Tesla Roadster only claims 245 miles/charge.
>> >> The Tesla Model S claims > 300 miles/charge, but Tesla says it wont be
>> >> available till 2012.
>>
>> >> Oh yeah - the Tesla Roadster has a list price of $109,000.
>> >> The Tesla Model S is listed at $56,500.
>> >> There is a $7500 tax incentive that drops those prices a little.
>>
>> >> You can buy a pretty nice plane for $109k.
>>
>> > At this juncture we're discussing whether the technology
>> > exists, and if it's going mainstream.
>>
>> No, where are discussing whether or not the technology is on the market
>> with a side discussion of how affordable it is if it is on the market.
>
> I'm not smart enough to do that. I'll have to restrict myself
> to one topic, establish reality, then pick another. Your main
> refute thus far has been that it is technologically impossible.
> You've said it over and over.

Learn to read.

What I've said was technologically impossible for the foreseeable future
is any kind of portable, electric storage device to come anywhere near the
energy density of gasoline/diesel fuel.

> Is this still your stance on an electric car? That they won't
> exceed 40 miles on a charge, and never will, therefore we'll
> never see them on the roads?

Learn to read.

What I've said was I don't see any production, pure electric cars with
a one charge range of greater than 40 miles.

Since saying that I realize the Tesla gets around 200 miles on a charge,
so there is one.

One.

What I also said was that the price of all the pure electric cars was too
high for anyone other than a rich enviro-whinner to buy one.

The price of the Tesla is over $100,000, about what a new LSA costs.

You have said such a price level is unatenable for the average person
to buy an airplane.

If that is too much to pay for a new airplane, it also too much to pay for
a new car.

QED.

<snip more babble>

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark]

On Sep 24, 5:49*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 24, 4:16*pm, wrote:
> >> Mark > wrote:
> >> > On Sep 24, 2:18*pm, wrote:
> >> >> Mark > wrote:
> >> >> > On Sep 24, 1:40*pm, wrote:
> >> >> >> Mark > wrote:
> >> >> >> > On Sep 23, 12:30*pm, wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> In other words, there is nothing in production that makes even the 120
> >> >> >> >> miles you claim.
>
> >> >> >> >>Jim Pennino
>
> >> >> >> > 300 ÷ 120 = 2.5
>
> >> >> >> > ---
> >> >> >> > Mark
>
> >> >> >> So now you are claiming that there is a pure electric car in production
> >> >> >> that gets 300 miles to a charge?
>
> >> >> >> Where is it?
>
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> Jim Pennino
>
> >> >> > Oh, I think you may find it about 8 posts
> >> >> > back above this one, where I told you the first
> >> >> > time. However, they frequently exceed that
> >> >> > distance.
>
> >> >> > ---
> >> >> > Mark
>
> >> >> I'm not going back through all your broken links.
>
> >> >> Put up or shut up.
>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Jim Pennino
>
> >> > ????? *It isn't a link. I gave you the manufacturer's
> >> > name and model. It goes 300 miles on a charge.
> >> > It costs less than my truck did.
>
> >> If you actually had something it would have been easier for you to just
> >> repost the make and model instead of hand waving about it.
>
> >> Put up or shut up.
>
> >> --
> >> Jim Pennino
>
> > Well...Jim...it does get tiring having to repeat myself
> > over and over and over, when you've just not read what
> > I've already told you. Seems this is a reoccuring pattern.
> > I mean, I even counted for you to pinpoint it.
>
> > I don't know what arm-waving is. I'm a distance
> > swimmer, so, technically you're kinda right.
>
> Can't even find it yourself, can you?
>
> --
> Jim Pennino

Huh? Now Mr.Logajan has also posted the same
info in this thread. Now 2 of us have mentioned this
300 mile/charge electric car. I don't understand.
It's all up in this thread now.

---
Mark

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:

> Huh? Now Mr.Logajan has also posted the same
> info in this thread. Now 2 of us have mentioned this
> 300 mile/charge electric car. I don't understand.

You don't understand that the Tesla doesn't claim 300 mile/charge?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark]

On Sep 24, 6:21*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > Huh? *Now Mr.Logajan has also posted the same
> > info in this thread. *Now 2 of us have mentioned this
> > 300 mile/charge electric car. *I don't understand.
>
> You don't understand that the Tesla doesn't claim 300 mile/charge?
>
> --
> Jim Pennino

Tesla claims beyond 300 miles on one charge.

---
Mark

[Mark]

On Sep 24, 6:52*pm, Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 24, 6:21*pm, wrote:
>
> > Mark > wrote:
> > > Huh? *Now Mr.Logajan has also posted the same
> > > info in this thread. *Now 2 of us have mentioned this
> > > 300 mile/charge electric car. *I don't understand.
>
> > You don't understand that the Tesla doesn't claim 300 mile/charge?
>
> > --
> > Jim Pennino
>
> Tesla claims beyond 300 miles on one charge.
>
> ---
> Mark

They're also having trouble keeping up with demand.

My last count was in excess of 1500 already sold,
with deposit in escrow.

---
Mark

[Ari Silverstein]

On Fri, 24 Sep 2010 13:39:39 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

> I'm a distance
> swimmer,

Another Mark(ie) accomplishment! On the list it goes!
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 24, 6:21Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > Huh? Â*Now Mr.Logajan has also posted the same
>> > info in this thread. Â*Now 2 of us have mentioned this
>> > 300 mile/charge electric car. Â*I don't understand.
>>
>> You don't understand that the Tesla doesn't claim 300 mile/charge?
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>
> Tesla claims beyond 300 miles on one charge.
>
> ---
> Mark

Lier.

Tesla claims 245 miles for the Roadster and 300 miles for the Model S,
which is in development and doesn't yet exist.

http://www.teslamotors.com/models


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[george]

On Sep 25, 6:39*am, Mark > wrote:

> ????? *It isn't a link. I gave you the manufacturer's
> name and model. It goes 300 miles on a charge.
> It costs less than my truck did.

The manufacturer makes the 300 mile claim.
No-one else does.
And your truck must be at least a 6 wheeler

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 24, 6:52Â*pm, Mark > wrote:
>> On Sep 24, 6:21Â*pm, wrote:
>>
>> > Mark > wrote:
>> > > Huh? Â*Now Mr.Logajan has also posted the same
>> > > info in this thread. Â*Now 2 of us have mentioned this
>> > > 300 mile/charge electric car. Â*I don't understand.
>>
>> > You don't understand that the Tesla doesn't claim 300 mile/charge?
>>
>> > --
>> > Jim Pennino
>>
>> Tesla claims beyond 300 miles on one charge.
>>
>> ---
>> Mark
>
> They're also having trouble keeping up with demand.
>
> My last count was in excess of 1500 already sold,

And that is world wide.

So far this year, the worlds car makers have put out roughly 38,000,000 cars.

Tesla has managed to capture .004% of the market.

Oh yeah, the crowds are forming to buy these things.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark]

On Sep 24, 7:14*pm, george > wrote:
> On Sep 25, 6:39*am, Mark > wrote:
>
> > ????? *It isn't a link. I gave you the manufacturer's
> > name and model. It goes 300 miles on a charge.
> > It costs less than my truck did.
>
> The manufacturer makes the 300 mile claim.

That is their website/official claim that won't
get them sued for exaggerating.

> No-one else does.

There are color photos on the web, and testimonies
of the people who exceed that number.

> And your truck must be at least a 6 wheeler

Been to a truck Dealership lately? Looked at
any new 250's? Looked at any new 150's or
Toyotas, Silverados, Supercrew, 4 X 4 with the
leather and largest motor? Cheaper than
an airplane but more than a Tesla S model.

----
Mark

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 24, 6:00Â*pm, wrote:

>> Learn to read.
>
> Then how am I typing this sentence?

10,000 monkeys?

>> What I've said was technologically impossible for the foreseeable future
>> is any kind of portable, electric storage device to come anywhere near the
>> energy density of gasoline/diesel fuel.
>
> Ok, this is the topic now.

I said what I said, not what you lied and said I said, all of which is
indendant of "the topic".

> Will your car go 300 miles on a tank of gas?

Easily.

> How about 500 miles on a tank of gas?

Not quite, about 400 miles with careful driving.

> Nevermind the fact that you're stinking up the planet
> and funding terrorism for now.

**** you and the goat you rode in on.

>> Learn to read.
>
> That's not an answer.

Learn to read.

The answer is in my next sentence.

>> What I've said was I don't see any production, pure electric cars with
>> a one charge range of greater than 40 miles.
>
>> Since saying that I realize the Tesla gets around 200 miles on a charge,
>> so there is one.
>
> So...you were wrong. Yes?

Yes, on one point.

> Ok, so technologically, it is possible then,

Here comes the big lie again.

What I've said was technologically impossible for the foreseeable future
is any kind of portable, electric storage device to come anywhere near the
energy density of gasoline/diesel fuel.

> Wrong. They cost 47 grand, less than a nice truck.

Another lie.

The Tesla Roadster costs over $100,000.

The Tesla Model S is predicted to cost less, but it doesn't yet exist.

> of a mass produced, electric car that costs 11 grand, but don't
> want to discuss it in this conversation yet

Another lie; such doesn't exist.

LSV's are not cars.

>> You have said such a price level is unatenable for the average person
>> to buy an airplane.
>
> Sorta. I said that in 1971 the average person could buy a new
> plane, and now they can't. New planes, after avionics, insurance,
> hanger, your license and gear, will cost 150 -310 thousand bucks.

Most new LSA's cost a bit over $100,000.

> A luxury electric car, similar to a Lexus, costs 47 grand.

Lier, such does not exist.

>> If that is too much to pay for a new airplane, it also too much to pay for
>> a new car.
>
> Now the topic is...compare e cars to airplanes?

Nope, just showing how you flip with the wind.

> How dare you! How dare you snip informative, relevant
> factual data that contradicts your mistaken information.

FOD.

> Lets look at what you snipped:

Why?

It was irrelvant babble the first time you wrote it.

<snip reposted irrelevant babble>


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark]

On Sep 24, 7:16*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 24, 6:52*pm, Mark > wrote:
> >> On Sep 24, 6:21*pm, wrote:
>
> >> > Mark > wrote:
> >> > > Huh? *Now Mr.Logajan has also posted the same
> >> > > info in this thread. *Now 2 of us have mentioned this
> >> > > 300 mile/charge electric car. *I don't understand.
>
> >> > You don't understand that the Tesla doesn't claim 300 mile/charge?
>
> >> > --
> >> > Jim Pennino
>
> >> Tesla claims beyond 300 miles on one charge.
>
> >> ---
> >> Mark
>
> > They're also having trouble keeping up with demand.
>
> > My last count was in excess of 1500 already sold,
>
> And that is world wide.
>
> So far this year, the worlds car makers have put out roughly 38,000,000 cars.
>
> Tesla has managed to capture .004% of the market.
>
> Oh yeah, the crowds are forming to buy these things.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino

Let's pretend for a second. I've invented a new HVAC
system for the residental market. It is 2X as efficient
as anything Carrier or anyone else has. But, I've
just started production. You can get one next spring
through you building contractor. It will save people
50% on their heating and cooling. If asked, NO one
says they don't want one.

What will my sales figures look like today?

What about people who want one, but have
no store to purchase it yet.

What about people, like you, just finding out?

What about people who want one, but cannot
afford to rip out their old HVAC system?

Apples to apples.

Your position on e cars is overlooking several key
factors, which invalidates your opinion.

---
Mark

[Mark]

On Sep 24, 7:07Â*pm, wrote:

> >> You don't understand that the Tesla doesn't claim 300 mile/charge?
>
> >> --
> >> Jim Pennino
>
> > Tesla claims beyond 300 miles on one charge.
>
> > ---
> > Mark
>
> Lier.

Well, you finally got something right. Yes, I am
a lier. I think stalking is for remedial combatants. To assure
success, you must know the ways of your adversary,
then lie in wait for him to walk into your trap. ( we can
talk about Sun Tzu later, and The Art of War )

Li´er (lī´ẽr)
n. 1. One who lies down; one who rests or remains, as in concealment.
as in, There were liers in an ambush against him.

> Tesla claims 245 miles for the Roadster and 300 miles for the Model S,

But you said 200 miles on a charge. You were wrong, yes?

> which is in development and doesn't yet exist.

They aren't in development. They are in production.
A few are already on the roads.(pre-production models of
the exact car) These have exceeded 300 miles on a charge.

You are wrong, yes?

> --
> Jim Pennino

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 24, 7:16Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > On Sep 24, 6:52Â*pm, Mark > wrote:
>> >> On Sep 24, 6:21Â*pm, wrote:
>>
>> >> > Mark > wrote:
>> >> > > Huh? Â*Now Mr.Logajan has also posted the same
>> >> > > info in this thread. Â*Now 2 of us have mentioned this
>> >> > > 300 mile/charge electric car. Â*I don't understand.
>>
>> >> > You don't understand that the Tesla doesn't claim 300 mile/charge?
>>
>> >> > --
>> >> > Jim Pennino
>>
>> >> Tesla claims beyond 300 miles on one charge.
>>
>> >> ---
>> >> Mark
>>
>> > They're also having trouble keeping up with demand.
>>
>> > My last count was in excess of 1500 already sold,
>>
>> And that is world wide.
>>
>> So far this year, the worlds car makers have put out roughly 38,000,000 cars.
>>
>> Tesla has managed to capture .004% of the market.
>>
>> Oh yeah, the crowds are forming to buy these things.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>
> Let's pretend for a second. I've invented a new HVAC
> system for the residental market. It is 2X as efficient
> as anything Carrier or anyone else has. But, I've
> just started production. You can get one next spring
> through you building contractor. It will save people
> 50% on their heating and cooling. If asked, NO one
> says they don't want one.

A big unstated factor is the installed price.

Assuming it is cost competive, then people will fall into groups:

Non-buyers:

People that don't want the big capital outlay as long as the current system
is working, i.e. the majority of people.

Buyers:

People who need the existing system replaced, i.e. some small fraction.

People with "needs" that require the system run 24/7, have huge utility
bills, and have the capital to replace the system, i.e. some small fraction.

Wealth enviro-whinners that will buy and pay for anything with a "green"
lable on it, i.e. some small fraction.

If it is not cost competitive, buyer group 1 gets even smaller and
buy something else while group 2 will do an economic analysis of capital
cost versus saved utilities cost.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 24, 7:07Â*pm, wrote:
>
>> >> You don't understand that the Tesla doesn't claim 300 mile/charge?
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Jim Pennino
>>
>> > Tesla claims beyond 300 miles on one charge.
>>
>> > ---
>> > Mark
>>
>> Lier.
>
> Well, you finally got something right. Yes, I am
> a lier.

We finally agree on something.

<snip babble>


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 24, 7:30Â*pm, wrote:

>> > Nevermind the fact that you're stinking up the planet
>> > and funding terrorism for now.
>>
>> **** you and the goat you rode in on.
>
> I will assume you misread that, to think I was
> referring to "Jim", and not your fossil fuel car.
> I meant your fossil fuel car. It stinks up the planet
> and funds terrorism.

**** you and the goat you rode in on.

<snip lies, bull****, and arm waving>


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark]

On Sep 24, 8:18Â*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 24, 7:07Â*pm, wrote:
>
> >> >> You don't understand that the Tesla doesn't claim 300 mile/charge?
>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Jim Pennino
>
> >> > Tesla claims beyond 300 miles on one charge.
>
> >> > ---
> >> > Mark
>
> >> Lier.
>
> > Well, you finally got something right. Yes, I am
> > a lier.
>
> We finally agree on something.
>
> <snip babble>
>
> --
> Jim Pennino


Li´er (lī´ẽr)
n. 1. One who lies down; one who rests or remains, as in concealment.
as in, There were liers in an ambush against him.

And by <snip babble> I will take that to mean that
you are unable to prove anything you've said, for if
you could, you would. My information is here to
inform and enlighten, and your statements ended
up being the only actual babble written.

Let me know when you want to talk about "The
Art of War". Read the book first.

---
Mark

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:

> Let me know when you want to talk about "The
> Art of War". Read the book first.

Read it about 40 years ago and why would I want to talk about it with a
babbling lier?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jim Logajan]

Mark > wrote:
> Huh? Now Mr.Logajan has also posted the same
> info in this thread. Now 2 of us have mentioned this
> 300 mile/charge electric car. I don't understand.

My post did not mention the existence of any 300 mile/charge electric car.
I simply repeated information from the Tesla website that indicated they
hoped to have such a car in production in about 2 years.

I would have thought the asking prices for the Tesla cars would have made
you understand that in doing their due diligence for their investors, they
are not expecting any breakthoughs in battery capacities any time soon.

[Mark]

On Sep 24, 9:22*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > Huh? *Now Mr.Logajan has also posted the same
> > info in this thread. *Now 2 of us have mentioned this
> > 300 mile/charge electric car. *I don't understand.
>
> My post did not mention the existence of any 300 mile/charge electric car..
> I simply repeated information from the Tesla website that indicated they
> hoped to have such a car in production in about 2 years.

Yes. I was reiterating simply that you had given the
Manufacturer's name...i.e., Tesla, as had I.

> I would have thought the asking prices for the Tesla cars would have made
> you understand that in doing their due diligence for their investors, they
> are not expecting any breakthoughs in battery capacities any time soon.

Yes. I'm unaware of Tesla using any new battery technology beyond
what they're currently using.

---
Mark

[Mark]

On Sep 24, 9:22*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > Huh? *Now Mr.Logajan has also posted the same
> > info in this thread. *Now 2 of us have mentioned this
> > 300 mile/charge electric car. *I don't understand.
>
> My post did not mention the existence of any 300 mile/charge electric car..
> I simply repeated information from the Tesla website that indicated they
> hoped to have such a car in production in about 2 years.
>
> I would have thought the asking prices for the Tesla cars would have made
> you understand that in doing their due diligence for their investors, they
> are not expecting any breakthoughs in battery capacities any time soon.

47 grand sounds reasonable to me for a luxury
car, especially one that needs no gas.

---
Mark

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:

> Are you smart?

FOAD.

<snip babble>


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:

> So what's it gonna be punk?

FOAD.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark]

On Sep 24, 9:22*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > Huh? *Now Mr.Logajan has also posted the same
> > info in this thread. *Now 2 of us have mentioned this
> > 300 mile/charge electric car. *I don't understand.
>
> My post did not mention the existence of any 300 mile/charge electric car..
> I simply repeated information from the Tesla website that indicated they
> hoped to have such a car in production in about 2 years.
>
> I would have thought the asking prices for the Tesla cars would have made
> you understand that in doing their due diligence for their investors, they
> are not expecting any breakthoughs in battery capacities any time soon.

See, even the roadster gets over 300 miles on a charge
under the right conditions, so I wasn't putting words in
your mouth, but simply saying what I already knew.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2355170,00.asp

[Mark]

On Sep 24, 8:17*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 24, 7:16*pm, wrote:
> >> Mark > wrote:
> >> > On Sep 24, 6:52*pm, Mark > wrote:
> >> >> On Sep 24, 6:21*pm, wrote:
>
> >> >> > Mark > wrote:
> >> >> > > Huh? *Now Mr.Logajan has also posted the same
> >> >> > > info in this thread. *Now 2 of us have mentioned this
> >> >> > > 300 mile/charge electric car. *I don't understand.
>
> >> >> > You don't understand that the Tesla doesn't claim 300 mile/charge?
>
> >> >> > --
> >> >> > Jim Pennino
>
> >> >> Tesla claims beyond 300 miles on one charge.
>
> >> >> ---
> >> >> Mark
>
> >> > They're also having trouble keeping up with demand.
>
> >> > My last count was in excess of 1500 already sold,
>
> >> And that is world wide.
>
> >> So far this year, the worlds car makers have put out roughly 38,000,000 cars.
>
> >> Tesla has managed to capture .004% of the market.
>
> >> Oh yeah, the crowds are forming to buy these things.
>
> >> --
> >> Jim Pennino
>
> > Let's pretend for a second. I've invented a new HVAC
> > system for the residental market. It is 2X as efficient
> > as anything Carrier or anyone else has. *But, I've
> > just started production. You can get one next spring
> > through you building contractor. It will save people
> > 50% on their heating and cooling. If asked, NO one
> > says they don't want one.
>
> A big unstated factor is the installed price.

Good point. The examination of hvac systems to e cars
has an additional unparallel comparison, installation. That
is a one time fee. With e cars, their R & D might be the
unstated factor which the company must recoupe. So,
initally, the prices would be higher for them to make a
profit. Over time...the prices will fall as their R & D
investment is returned.

> Assuming it is cost competive, then people will fall into groups:
>
> Non-buyers:
>
> People that don't want the big capital outlay as long as the current system
> is working, i.e. the majority of people.

Maybe. But how do the majority of people (in America) fund their
big capital outlays? They finance, and make monthly payments.
What is an electric bill? A monthly payment. Cut your electric
bill in half and now you can afford your new HVAC system. After
4 months you've paid off the installation portion of your investment.
Later you've paid off the entire new system, and freed up monthly
cash.

> Buyers:
>
> People who need the existing system replaced, i.e. some small fraction.

But, *everyone* needs this new HVAC system. It's warmer, it's
cooler, it's quieter, it takes up less room, and it has a lifetime
warranty.

> People with "needs" that require the system run 24/7, have huge utility
> bills, and have the capital to replace the system, i.e. some small fraction.

Ok, this group needs it even worse, and can act immediately.

> Wealth enviro-whinners that will buy and pay for anything with a "green"
> lable on it, i.e. some small fraction.

Agreed.

> If it is not cost competitive, buyer group 1 gets even smaller

But...it cuts your electric/gas bill down from 450/month to
225/month.

>and
> buy something else while group 2 will do an economic analysis of capital
> cost versus saved utilities cost.

Well, in all actuality, what would really occur is that your
building contractor would steer you into the new system, and
infomercials would saturate the media to convince the large
majority of people who make impulse purchases.

<thinking>

So...you're really a good guy, aren't you? And...you feel an
allegiance to this group and feel like you're pretty good at
running off interloping phonies. If so, that's commendable.
Or, you're a good guy with a gruff personality, kinda loose
with details, but everyone accepts that, because you're a
good guy. You may act like an asshole to me, but I see
through that. That is why I feel so bad about calling you a
pinhead in a post title. Just bear in mind that I'm an
aggressive competetor, not a troll, and no one pushes me
around. If other pilots will post piloting questions and
stories, then I can go back to just lurking.

<g> Or I might get back on my bicycle at the airport
and ride around with my magic headphones that
pick up alien spacecraft.

---
Mark

> --
> Jim Pennino

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 24, 8:17Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:

>> > Let's pretend for a second. I've invented a new HVAC
>> > system for the residental market. It is 2X as efficient
>> > as anything Carrier or anyone else has. Â*But, I've
>> > just started production. You can get one next spring
>> > through you building contractor. It will save people
>> > 50% on their heating and cooling. If asked, NO one
>> > says they don't want one.
>>
>> A big unstated factor is the installed price.
>
> Good point. The examination of hvac systems to e cars
> has an additional unparallel comparison, installation. That
> is a one time fee. With e cars, their R & D might be the

Babble.

Any new product has R&D costs.

>> Non-buyers:
>>
>> People that don't want the big capital outlay as long as the current system
>> is working, i.e. the majority of people.
>
> Maybe. But how do the majority of people (in America) fund their
> big capital outlays? They finance, and make monthly payments.
> What is an electric bill? A monthly payment. Cut your electric
> bill in half and now you can afford your new HVAC system.

Babble.

Half my average electric bill is about $45, hardly enough to cover the
payment on a new HVAC system.

> 4 months you've paid off the installation portion of your investment.

Babble.

The installation cost is rolled into the total cost.

>> People who need the existing system replaced, i.e. some small fraction.
>
> But, *everyone* needs this new HVAC system. It's warmer, it's
> cooler, it's quieter, it takes up less room, and it has a lifetime
> warranty.

Babble.

The temperature is set by the thermostate, all modern HVAC systems are quiet,
and nobody cares how much room it takes on the roof or the patio.

>> People with "needs" that require the system run 24/7, have huge utility
>> bills, and have the capital to replace the system, i.e. some small fraction.
>
> But...it cuts your electric/gas bill down from 450/month to
> 225/month.

If you have a $450/monthe electric bill, you either live in a mansion or
you are doing something really stupid.

>> buy something else while group 2 will do an economic analysis of capital
>> cost versus saved utilities cost.
>
> Well, in all actuality, what would really occur is that your
> building contractor would steer you into the new system, and
> infomercials would saturate the media to convince the large
> majority of people who make impulse purchases.

Babble.

People make impulse purchases of bags of potatoe chips and cookies, not
major appliances.

> So...you're really a good guy, aren't you? And...you feel an
> allegiance to this group and feel like you're pretty good at
> running off interloping phonies. If so, that's commendable.
> Or, you're a good guy with a gruff personality, kinda loose
> with details, but everyone accepts that, because you're a
> good guy. You may act like an asshole to me, but I see
> through that. That is why I feel so bad about calling you a
> pinhead in a post title. Just bear in mind that I'm an
> aggressive competetor, not a troll, and no one pushes me
> around. If other pilots will post piloting questions and
> stories, then I can go back to just lurking.

Babble.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 24, 9:38Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > So what's it gonna be punk?
>>
>> FOAD.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>>
>> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> And by FOAD, I will take that to mean

It means **** off and die.

<snip babbling nonsense>


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[joeturn]

On Sep 25, 10:00*am, Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 24, 8:17*pm, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Mark > wrote:
> > > On Sep 24, 7:16*pm, wrote:
> > >> Mark > wrote:
> > >> > On Sep 24, 6:52*pm, Mark > wrote:
> > >> >> On Sep 24, 6:21*pm, wrote:
>
> > >> >> > Mark > wrote:
> > >> >> > > Huh? *Now Mr.Logajan has also posted the same
> > >> >> > > info in this thread. *Now 2 of us have mentioned this
> > >> >> > > 300 mile/charge electric car. *I don't understand.
>
> > >> >> > You don't understand that the Tesla doesn't claim 300 mile/charge?
>
> > >> >> > --
> > >> >> > Jim Pennino
>
> > >> >> Tesla claims beyond 300 miles on one charge.
>
> > >> >> ---
> > >> >> Mark
>
> > >> > They're also having trouble keeping up with demand.
>
> > >> > My last count was in excess of 1500 already sold,
>
> > >> And that is world wide.
>
> > >> So far this year, the worlds car makers have put out roughly 38,000,000 cars.
>
> > >> Tesla has managed to capture .004% of the market.
>
> > >> Oh yeah, the crowds are forming to buy these things.
>
> > >> --
> > >> Jim Pennino
>
> > > Let's pretend for a second. I've invented a new HVAC
> > > system for the residental market. It is 2X as efficient
> > > as anything Carrier or anyone else has. *But, I've
> > > just started production. You can get one next spring
> > > through you building contractor. It will save people
> > > 50% on their heating and cooling. If asked, NO one
> > > says they don't want one.
>
> > A big unstated factor is the installed price.
>
> Good point. The examination of hvac systems to e cars
> has an additional unparallel comparison, installation. That
> is a one time fee. With e cars, their R & D might be the
> unstated factor which the company must recoupe. So,
> initally, the prices would be higher for them to make a
> profit. Over time...the prices will fall as their R & D
> investment is returned.
>
> > Assuming it is cost competive, then people will fall into groups:
>
> > Non-buyers:
>
> > People that don't want the big capital outlay as long as the current system
> > is working, i.e. the majority of people.
>
> Maybe. But how do the majority of people (in America) fund their
> big capital outlays? *They finance, and make monthly payments.
> What is an electric bill? A monthly payment. Cut your electric
> bill in half and now you can afford your new HVAC system. After
> 4 months you've paid off the installation portion of your investment.
> Later you've paid off the entire new system, and freed up monthly
> cash.
>
> > Buyers:
>
> > People who need the existing system replaced, i.e. some small fraction.
>
> But, *everyone* needs this new HVAC system. It's warmer, it's
> cooler, it's quieter, it takes up less room, and it has a lifetime
> warranty.
>
> > People with "needs" that require the system run 24/7, have huge utility
> > bills, and have the capital to replace the system, i.e. some small fraction.
>
> Ok, this group needs it even worse, and can act immediately.
>
> > Wealth enviro-whinners that will buy and pay for anything with a "green"
> > lable on it, i.e. some small fraction.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > If it is not cost competitive, buyer group 1 gets even smaller
>
> But...it cuts your electric/gas bill down from 450/month to
> 225/month.
>
> >and
> > buy something else while group 2 will do an economic analysis of capital
> > cost versus saved utilities cost.
>
> Well, in all actuality, what would really occur is that your
> building contractor would steer you into the new system, and
> infomercials would saturate the media to convince the large
> majority of people who make impulse purchases.
>
> <thinking>
>
> So...you're really a good guy, aren't you? *And...you feel an
> allegiance to this group and feel like you're pretty good at
> running off interloping phonies. If so, that's commendable.
> Or, you're a good guy with a gruff personality, kinda loose
> with details, but everyone accepts that, because you're a
> good guy. You may act like an asshole to me, but I see
> through that. That is why I feel so bad about calling you a
> pinhead in a post title. Just bear in mind that I'm an
> aggressive competetor, not a troll, and no one pushes me
> around. If other pilots will post piloting questions and
> stories, then I can go back to just lurking.
>
> <g> Or I might get back on my bicycle at the airport
> * * * *and ride around with my magic headphones that
> * * * *pick up alien spacecraft.
>
> ---
> Mark
>
>
>
> > --
> > Jim Pennino- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

As I was stalking the spamologist Edward,I was intriged with your
thread.The Tesla car could be made to be limitless,if it contained one
of these to charge the battery while in motion!''However the
illuminati has too much to loose to allow production of a replacement
for the internal combustion engine!

The power companies would go out of buisiness and Obama would have to
tear down all those power lines and do away with nuclear facilties as
thats their intended purpose to furnish electricity instead of
building nuclear weapons!

So free energy devices are too much of a threat to big buisiness $$$$$$
$$$$$$

http://www.magniwork.com/?hop=promo15391

[Mark]

On Sep 25, 1:09*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 24, 9:38*pm, wrote:
> >> Mark > wrote:
> >> > So what's it gonna be punk?
>
> >> FOAD.
>
> >> --
> >> Jim Pennino
>
> >> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> > And by FOAD, I will take that to mean
>
> It means **** off and die.
>
> <snap crackle pop>
>
> --
> Jim Pennino

"This has been a debate for people for many years of what is better
Chevrolet or Foad. And, you have probably seen people fight over this
issue, because one person thinks their automobile is better than the
other one.
But, to be honest with you all cars are good cars, if they are a
newer model, and have well maintenance. So, in this article I am going
to discuss what to look for in a Chevrolet, or Foad automobile before
actually buying it..."

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/240161/chevrolet_or_ford.html?cat=27

---
Mark

[Mark]

On Sep 25, 2:54*pm, joeturn > wrote:
> On Sep 25, 10:00*am, Mark > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 24, 8:17*pm, wrote:
>
> > > Mark > wrote:
> > > > On Sep 24, 7:16*pm, wrote:
> > > >> Mark > wrote:
> > > >> > On Sep 24, 6:52*pm, Mark > wrote:
> > > >> >> On Sep 24, 6:21*pm, wrote:
>
> > > >> >> > Mark > wrote:
> > > >> >> > > Huh? *Now Mr.Logajan has also posted the same
> > > >> >> > > info in this thread. *Now 2 of us have mentioned this
> > > >> >> > > 300 mile/charge electric car. *I don't understand.
>
> > > >> >> > You don't understand that the Tesla doesn't claim 300 mile/charge?
>
> > > >> >> > --
> > > >> >> > Jim Pennino
>
> > > >> >> Tesla claims beyond 300 miles on one charge.
>
> > > >> >> ---
> > > >> >> Mark
>
> > > >> > They're also having trouble keeping up with demand.
>
> > > >> > My last count was in excess of 1500 already sold,
>
> > > >> And that is world wide.
>
> > > >> So far this year, the worlds car makers have put out roughly 38,000,000 cars.
>
> > > >> Tesla has managed to capture .004% of the market.
>
> > > >> Oh yeah, the crowds are forming to buy these things.
>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Jim Pennino
>
> > > > Let's pretend for a second. I've invented a new HVAC
> > > > system for the residental market. It is 2X as efficient
> > > > as anything Carrier or anyone else has. *But, I've
> > > > just started production. You can get one next spring
> > > > through you building contractor. It will save people
> > > > 50% on their heating and cooling. If asked, NO one
> > > > says they don't want one.
>
> > > A big unstated factor is the installed price.
>
> > Good point. The examination of hvac systems to e cars
> > has an additional unparallel comparison, installation. That
> > is a one time fee. With e cars, their R & D might be the
> > unstated factor which the company must recoupe. So,
> > initally, the prices would be higher for them to make a
> > profit. Over time...the prices will fall as their R & D
> > investment is returned.
>
> > > Assuming it is cost competive, then people will fall into groups:
>
> > > Non-buyers:
>
> > > People that don't want the big capital outlay as long as the current system
> > > is working, i.e. the majority of people.
>
> > Maybe. But how do the majority of people (in America) fund their
> > big capital outlays? *They finance, and make monthly payments.
> > What is an electric bill? A monthly payment. Cut your electric
> > bill in half and now you can afford your new HVAC system. After
> > 4 months you've paid off the installation portion of your investment.
> > Later you've paid off the entire new system, and freed up monthly
> > cash.
>
> > > Buyers:
>
> > > People who need the existing system replaced, i.e. some small fraction.

[Dylan Smith[_2_]]

On 2010-09-24, > wrote:
> Complex chips were infant technology in 1969.
>
> Batteries and electric motors are mature technologies.

Lithium ion is a relatively new battery technology, though. Not all
batteries are equal, while lead-acid is very mature, Li-Ion type batteries
not so much.

Since I started flying radio control helicopters (only in early 2008),
the batteries have got visibly smaller and higher capacity. The batteries
I bought for the T-Rex 500 in Dec. 2008 are larger, heavier, and have
about 40% less capacity than the new ones I bought a month ago - which
not only are more capacious, lighter, and smaller - but were also around
50% of the cost of my original battery packs (which I am still using).

Ten years ago, Li-Ion type batteries were hard pushed to discharge
at rates greater than 1C (1C = a charge or discharge rate in amps equal
to the amp-hour rating of the battery). Most of my packs now are 25C
to 35C discharge rate (continuous discharge) and double that for peak
discharge rate. I have a 3700mAh LiPoly pack that has a discharge rate
adequate to easily start my car's engine, and it fits happily in the
palm of my hand. There have been lab designs that have increased the
density of Li-Ion type batteries five fold in the lab. On previous
performance it takes around 10-15 years before Li-Ion developments
go from a lab concept to a commercial product. (Whether the latest
developments can support a high "C" rating are yet to be seen).

> All the improvements in both in the last few decades have been in the area
> of expensive materials engineering, i.e. rare earth elements.

Batteries don't use the rare earths, they use alkali metals (lithium). It's
very recyclable and the batteries last a long time if looked after (i.e.
have properly designed charging circuits and aren't discharged at
rates greater than their design).

The rare earths in motors are (despite their name) not necessarily actually
rare. Not as common as iron or aluminium ores, but not like gold or silver.
They are also highly recyclable.

In any case, improvements in $INSERT_TECHNOLOGY_HERE usually are by
materials and manufacturing engineering, it's hardly a surprise that
it's the same for batteries. How many billions has Intel had to invest
to make the latest sub 40nm fabrication process?

I will agree that we won't be seeing electric aircraft with the utility
of a Beech Bonanza any time soon, and affordable electric cars are still
quite a way off. However, I wouldn't throw the concept out of the window
just yet.

[Mark]

On Sep 27, 10:01*am, Dylan Smith > wrote:
> On 2010-09-24, > wrote:
>
> > Complex chips were infant technology in 1969.
>
> > Batteries and electric motors are mature technologies.
>
> Lithium ion is a relatively new battery technology, though. Not all
> batteries are equal, while lead-acid is very mature, Li-Ion type batteries
> not so much.
>
> Since I started flying radio control helicopters (only in early 2008),
> the batteries have got visibly smaller and higher capacity. The batteries
> I bought for the T-Rex 500 in Dec. 2008 are larger, heavier, and have
> about 40% less capacity than the new ones I bought a month ago - which
> not only are more capacious, lighter, and smaller - but were also around
> 50% of the cost of my original battery packs (which I am still using).
>
> Ten years ago, Li-Ion type batteries were hard pushed to discharge
> at rates greater than 1C (1C = a charge or discharge rate in amps equal
> to the amp-hour rating of the battery). Most of my packs now are 25C
> to 35C discharge rate (continuous discharge) and double that for peak
> discharge rate. I have a 3700mAh LiPoly pack that has a discharge rate
> adequate to easily start my car's engine, and it fits happily in the
> palm of my hand. There have been lab designs that have increased the
> density of Li-Ion type batteries five fold in the lab. On previous
> performance it takes around 10-15 years before Li-Ion developments
> go from a lab concept to a commercial product. (Whether the latest
> developments can support a high "C" rating are yet to be seen).
>
> > All the improvements in both in the last few decades have been in the area
> > of expensive materials engineering, i.e. rare earth elements.
>
> Batteries don't use the rare earths, they use alkali metals (lithium). It's
> very recyclable and the batteries last a long time if looked after (i.e.
> have properly designed charging circuits and aren't discharged at
> rates greater than their design).
>
> The rare earths in motors are (despite their name) not necessarily actually
> rare. Not as common as iron or aluminium ores, but not like gold or silver.

[[email protected]]

Dylan Smith > wrote:
> On 2010-09-24, > wrote:
>> Complex chips were infant technology in 1969.
>>
>> Batteries and electric motors are mature technologies.
>
> Lithium ion is a relatively new battery technology, though. Not all
> batteries are equal, while lead-acid is very mature, Li-Ion type batteries
> not so much.

There is no new physics in a lithium battery, only new materials, and they
satisfy a need that didn't exist a few decades ago.

<snip>

>> All the improvements in both in the last few decades have been in the area
>> of expensive materials engineering, i.e. rare earth elements.
>
> Batteries don't use the rare earths, they use alkali metals (lithium). It's
> very recyclable and the batteries last a long time if looked after (i.e.
> have properly designed charging circuits and aren't discharged at
> rates greater than their design).

That i.e should have been e.g., but anyway...

Lithium may not be a rare earth element, but it is expensive and most of the
sources are outside of the US if you are the type to worry about imports.

> The rare earths in motors are (despite their name) not necessarily actually
> rare. Not as common as iron or aluminium ores, but not like gold or silver.
> They are also highly recyclable.

Some of them are more expesive than gold and again most source are outside
of the US.

> In any case, improvements in $INSERT_TECHNOLOGY_HERE usually are by
> materials and manufacturing engineering, it's hardly a surprise that
> it's the same for batteries.

Yep, but batteries have been around for over a hundred years so most of
the basic work was done long ago.

What is new is the demand for small, light weight batteries for portable
electronics.

The need for high energy density, high power batteries has been around
since the WWI submarine.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Dylan Smith > wrote:

> The rare earths in motors are (despite their name) not necessarily actually
> rare. Not as common as iron or aluminium ores, but not like gold or silver.
> They are also highly recyclable.

One other thing...


"Concern rippled through markets Thursday after The New York Times
reported that China had slapped a ban on the export to Japan of rare earth
minerals - elements crucial to the production of everything from solar
panels and guided missiles to iPhones and Toyota's hybrid Prius automobile."

"In fact, China, which controls some 95 per cent of the world's supply
of these minerals, had begun to restrict its exports to all countries as
far back as July, after nearing an annual quota."


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/china-japan-trade-war-looms/article1722324/?cmpid=rss1

BTW, China is also controls the majority of the worlds lithium production.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[vaughn[_3_]]

> wrote in message
...
> The need for high energy density, high power batteries has been around
> since the WWI submarine.


WWI & WWII submarine batteries were certainly high power, but not terribly high
energy density. They were just plain-old lead-acid technology built on a fairly
large scale..

Vaughn

[[email protected]]

vaughn > wrote:
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> The need for high energy density, high power batteries has been around
>> since the WWI submarine.
>
>
> WWI & WWII submarine batteries were certainly high power, but not terribly high
> energy density. They were just plain-old lead-acid technology built on a fairly
> large scale..
>
> Vaughn

A lot of work went into improving the lead acid battery.

The batteries of 1945 were not the same as the batteries of 1914.

When the missile age dawned, there arose a need for a battery that could
set on the shelf for years and come to life as soon as the "fire" button
was pushed.

The increased use of portable electronic devices, first radios, then other
stuff, by the military spurred yet more battery work.

The dawning space age created yet more new battery requirements.

Most people seem to think battery development was stagnant until the cell
phone or lap top appeared.

Such is not the case.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[vaughn[_3_]]

> wrote in message
...
> vaughn > wrote:
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> The need for high energy density, high power batteries has been around
>>> since the WWI submarine.
>>
>>
>> WWI & WWII submarine batteries were certainly high power, but not terribly
>> high
>> energy density. They were just plain-old lead-acid technology built on a
>> fairly
>> large scale..
>>
>> Vaughn
>
> A lot of work went into improving the lead acid battery.
>

Perhaps, but none of what you wrote is responsive to my point. Submarine
batteries of that era (and later) did not have terribly high energy density.
They took up lots of space inside the hull and gave the submarine only limited
submerged propulsion capability. My cold war-era submarine had a battery bank
with basically the same technology as WWII units.

Vaughn

[Mark]

On Sep 27, 4:19*pm, "vaughn" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > vaughn > wrote:
>
> >> > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> The need for high energy density, high power batteries has been around
> >>> since the WWI submarine.
>
> >> WWI & WWII submarine batteries were certainly high power, but not terribly
> >> high
> >> energy density. *They were just plain-old lead-acid technology built on a
> >> fairly
> >> large scale..
>
> >> Vaughn
>
> > A lot of work went into improving the lead acid battery.
>
> Perhaps, but none of what you wrote is responsive to my point. *Submarine
> batteries of that era (and later) did not have terribly high energy density.
> They took up lots of space inside the hull and gave the submarine only limited
> submerged propulsion capability. *My cold war-era submarine had a battery bank
> with basically the same technology as WWII units.
>
> Vaughn- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

This is real, today:

Li-air battery...........40.1 megajoules/kilogram

Gasoline................44 megajoules/kilogram

Li-air will be old technology soon enough, and
replaced with something 10 X better.

The superiority of electric motors is being greatly,
greatly underestimated in a comparison, as well as
the weight shed from empty gas tanks.
Li-air batteries don't weigh much.

Electric propulsion will replace the internal combustion
engine.

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

---
Mark

[[email protected]]

vaughn > wrote:
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> vaughn > wrote:
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> The need for high energy density, high power batteries has been around
>>>> since the WWI submarine.
>>>
>>>
>>> WWI & WWII submarine batteries were certainly high power, but not terribly
>>> high
>>> energy density. They were just plain-old lead-acid technology built on a
>>> fairly
>>> large scale..
>>>
>>> Vaughn
>>
>> A lot of work went into improving the lead acid battery.
>>
>
> Perhaps, but none of what you wrote is responsive to my point. Submarine
> batteries of that era (and later) did not have terribly high energy density.
> They took up lots of space inside the hull and gave the submarine only limited
> submerged propulsion capability. My cold war-era submarine had a battery bank
> with basically the same technology as WWII units.
>
> Vaughn

The lead acid battery was invented in 1859 and the materials, construction
and energy density have changed significantly over the years.

The same can be said for any type of battery chemistry.

Batteries have existed for over 2000 years and the physics has been worked
out for about 300 years.

Lithium batteries, far from being cutting edge technology, were invented
100 years ago.

The batteries in todays electric cars have the same basic technology as
WWI lithium batteries.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 27, 4:19Â*pm, "vaughn" > wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > vaughn > wrote:
>>
>> >> > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>> The need for high energy density, high power batteries has been around
>> >>> since the WWI submarine.
>>
>> >> WWI & WWII submarine batteries were certainly high power, but not terribly
>> >> high
>> >> energy density. Â*They were just plain-old lead-acid technology built on a
>> >> fairly
>> >> large scale..
>>
>> >> Vaughn
>>
>> > A lot of work went into improving the lead acid battery.
>>
>> Perhaps, but none of what you wrote is responsive to my point. Â*Submarine
>> batteries of that era (and later) did not have terribly high energy density.
>> They took up lots of space inside the hull and gave the submarine only limited
>> submerged propulsion capability. Â*My cold war-era submarine had a battery bank
>> with basically the same technology as WWII units.
>>
>> Vaughn- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> This is real, today:
>
> Li-air battery...........40.1 megajoules/kilogram
>
> Gasoline................44 megajoules/kilogram

<snip arm waving babble>

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_air_battery
>
> ---
> Mark

At the end of the article:

"When fully developed these batteries are expected to exhibit practical
specific energies of over 1000 Wh/kg[7] (3.6 MJ/kg)."

Notice the word "theoretical" at the top and the words "expected" and
"practical" at the bottom.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[vaughn[_3_]]

> wrote in message
...
> vaughn > wrote:
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> vaughn > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> The need for high energy density, high power batteries has been around
>>>>> since the WWI submarine.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> WWI & WWII submarine batteries were certainly high power, but not terribly
>>>> high
>>>> energy density. They were just plain-old lead-acid technology built on a
>>>> fairly
>>>> large scale..
>>>>
>>>> Vaughn
>>>
>>> A lot of work went into improving the lead acid battery.
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps, but none of what you wrote is responsive to my point. Submarine
>> batteries of that era (and later) did not have terribly high energy density.
>> They took up lots of space inside the hull and gave the submarine only
>> limited
>> submerged propulsion capability. My cold war-era submarine had a battery
>> bank
>> with basically the same technology as WWII units.
>>
>> Vaughn
>
> The lead acid battery was invented in 1859 and the materials, construction
> and energy density have changed significantly over the years.
>
Yet again, not responsive to my point.
You seem to like play to your own tune, so I'll just let you alone to do it.

Have a nice life!
Vaughn

[Mark]

On Sep 27, 5:38*pm, wrote:

<snip >

Er Jim, I'm not trying to convince YOU. You still
think atomic airplanes produce electricity off their
reactors. You're beyond the ability to comprehend.
You know nothing about atomic engineering and
nanostructures.

I now know...

Arguing with you is like coming in first at the Special
Olympics. I will win, but I'd have to be retarded to
do it.

---
Mark

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 27, 5:38Â*pm, wrote:
>
> <snip >
>
> Er Jim, I'm not trying to convince YOU. You still
> think atomic airplanes produce electricity off their
> reactors.

Learn to read, idiot.

<snip babble>

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

vaughn > wrote:
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> vaughn > wrote:
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> vaughn > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> The need for high energy density, high power batteries has been around
>>>>>> since the WWI submarine.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> WWI & WWII submarine batteries were certainly high power, but not terribly
>>>>> high
>>>>> energy density. They were just plain-old lead-acid technology built on a
>>>>> fairly
>>>>> large scale..
>>>>>
>>>>> Vaughn
>>>>
>>>> A lot of work went into improving the lead acid battery.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps, but none of what you wrote is responsive to my point. Submarine
>>> batteries of that era (and later) did not have terribly high energy density.
>>> They took up lots of space inside the hull and gave the submarine only
>>> limited
>>> submerged propulsion capability. My cold war-era submarine had a battery
>>> bank
>>> with basically the same technology as WWII units.
>>>
>>> Vaughn
>>
>> The lead acid battery was invented in 1859 and the materials, construction
>> and energy density have changed significantly over the years.
>>
> Yet again, not responsive to my point.

Try re-reading the last sentence, which you snipped.

It is exactly responsive to your point, i.e. Prius batteries have a battery
bank with basically the same technology as WWI units.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[joeturn]

On Sep 25, 5:32*pm, Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 25, 2:54*pm, joeturn > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 25, 10:00*am, Mark > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 24, 8:17*pm, wrote:
>
> > > > Mark > wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 24, 7:16*pm, wrote:
> > > > >> Mark > wrote:
> > > > >> > On Sep 24, 6:52*pm, Mark > wrote:
> > > > >> >> On Sep 24, 6:21*pm, wrote:
>
> > > > >> >> > Mark > wrote:
> > > > >> >> > > Huh? *Now Mr.Logajan has also posted the same
> > > > >> >> > > info in this thread. *Now 2 of us have mentioned this
> > > > >> >> > > 300 mile/charge electric car. *I don't understand.
>
> > > > >> >> > You don't understand that the Tesla doesn't claim 300 mile/charge?
>
> > > > >> >> > --
> > > > >> >> > Jim Pennino
>
> > > > >> >> Tesla claims beyond 300 miles on one charge.
>
> > > > >> >> ---
> > > > >> >> Mark
>
> > > > >> > They're also having trouble keeping up with demand.
>
> > > > >> > My last count was in excess of 1500 already sold,
>
> > > > >> And that is world wide.
>
> > > > >> So far this year, the worlds car makers have put out roughly 38,000,000 cars.
>
> > > > >> Tesla has managed to capture .004% of the market.
>
> > > > >> Oh yeah, the crowds are forming to buy these things.
>
> > > > >> --
> > > > >> Jim Pennino
>
> > > > > Let's pretend for a second. I've invented a new HVAC
> > > > > system for the residental market. It is 2X as efficient
> > > > > as anything Carrier or anyone else has. *But, I've
> > > > > just started production. You can get one next spring
> > > > > through you building contractor. It will save people
> > > > > 50% on their heating and cooling. If asked, NO one
> > > > > says they don't want one.
>
> > > > A big unstated factor is the installed price.
>
> > > Good point. The examination of hvac systems to e cars
> > > has an additional unparallel comparison, installation. That
> > > is a one time fee. With e cars, their R & D might be the
> > > unstated factor which the company must recoupe. So,
> > > initally, the prices would be higher for them to make a
> > > profit. Over time...the prices will fall as their R & D
> > > investment is returned.
>
> > > > Assuming it is cost competive, then people will fall into groups:
>
> > > > Non-buyers:
>
> > > > People that don't want the big capital outlay as long as the current system
> > > > is working, i.e. the majority of people.
>
> > > Maybe. But how do the majority of people (in America) fund their
> > > big capital outlays? *They finance, and make monthly payments.
> > > What is an electric bill? A monthly payment. Cut your electric
> > > bill in half and now you can afford your new HVAC system. After
> > > 4 months you've paid off the installation portion of your investment.
> > > Later you've paid off the entire new system, and freed up monthly
> > > cash.
>
> > > > Buyers:
>
> > > > People who need the existing system replaced, i.e. some small fraction.
>
> > > But, *everyone* needs this new HVAC system. It's warmer, it's
> > > cooler, it's quieter, it takes up less room, and it has a lifetime
> > > warranty.
>
> > > > People with "needs" that require the system run 24/7, have huge utility
> > > > bills, and have the capital to replace the system, i.e. some small fraction.
>
> > > Ok, this group needs it even worse, and can act immediately.
>
> > > > Wealth enviro-whinners that will buy and pay for anything with a "green"
> > > > lable on it, i.e. some small fraction.
>
> > > Agreed.
>
> > > > If it is not cost competitive, buyer group 1 gets even smaller
>
> > > But...it cuts your electric/gas bill down from 450/month to
> > > 225/month.
>
> > > >and
> > > > buy something else while group 2 will do an economic analysis of capital
> > > > cost versus saved utilities cost.
>
> > > Well, in all actuality, what would really occur is that your
> > > building contractor would steer you into the new system, and
> > > infomercials would saturate the media to convince the large
> > > majority of people who make impulse purchases.
>
> > > <thinking>
>
> > > So...you're really a good guy, aren't you? *And...you feel an
> > > allegiance to this group and feel like you're pretty good at
> > > running off interloping phonies. If so, that's commendable.
> > > Or, you're a good guy with a gruff personality, kinda loose
> > > with details, but everyone accepts that, because you're a
> > > good guy. You may act like an asshole to me, but I see
> > > through that. That is why I feel so bad about calling you a
> > > pinhead in a post title. Just bear in mind that I'm an
> > > aggressive competetor, not a troll, and no one pushes me
> > > around. If other pilots will post piloting questions and
> > > stories, then I can go back to just lurking.
>
> > > <g> Or I might get back on my bicycle at the airport
> > > * * * *and ride around with my magic headphones that
> > > * * * *pick up alien spacecraft.
>
> > > ---
> > > Mark
>
> > > > --
> > > > Jim Pennino- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > As I was stalking the spamologist Edward,I was intriged with your
> > thread.The Tesla car could be made to be limitless,if it contained one
> > of these to charge the battery while in motion!''However the
> > illuminati has too much to loose to allow production of a replacement
> > for the internal combustion engine!
>
> > The power companies would go out of buisiness and Obama would have to
> > tear down all those power lines and do away with nuclear facilties as
> > thats their intended purpose to furnish electricity instead of
> > building nuclear weapons!
>
> > So free energy devices are too much of a threat to big buisiness $$$$$$
> > $$$$$$
>
> >http://www.magniwork.com/?hop=promo15391-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> That machine is an illusion. You cannot violate the law of
> thermodynamics. Perpetual motion is impossible.
>
> http://burtleburtle.net/bob/physics/whythere.html
>
> ---
> Mark- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Ahh, you've disappointed me Mark!

I was sure you would pick up on the fact that free energy was directly
censored out of the equation by big buisiness!

Remember Kaku said physics was off by a factor of 20 after being
proven wrong!

Now you have swallowed the idea that a perpetual motion machine is
imposible!?!?

Now do some digging ole Albert says Energy is equal to mass times the
time constant squared!

This means anything that has motion produces energy!

The electro-magnetic reaction will produce endless motion as a motor.
In reverse tecnology produces power(the generator/alternator).

Now to replace the electro magnets within an alternator/motor with
permanet magnets will cause passing the coil through the magnetic
field will produce Electricity without any power.

Trust me here it is being done! The illusion is censored
tecnology(free energy)<I;-)

[joeturn]

The second video shows where free energy is!

http://www.magneticgenerator.org/?t=M44p

[Mark]

On Sep 27, 9:56*pm, joeturn > wrote:
> On Sep 25, 5:32*pm, Mark > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 25, 2:54*pm, joeturn > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 25, 10:00*am, Mark > wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 24, 8:17*pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > Mark > wrote:
> > > > > > On Sep 24, 7:16*pm, wrote:
> > > > > >> Mark > wrote:
> > > > > >> > On Sep 24, 6:52*pm, Mark > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> On Sep 24, 6:21*pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > >> >> > Mark > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > Huh? *Now Mr.Logajan has also posted the same
> > > > > >> >> > > info in this thread. *Now 2 of us have mentioned this
> > > > > >> >> > > 300 mile/charge electric car. *I don't understand.
>
> > > > > >> >> > You don't understand that the Tesla doesn't claim 300 mile/charge?
>
> > > > > >> >> > --
> > > > > >> >> > Jim Pennino
>
> > > > > >> >> Tesla claims beyond 300 miles on one charge.
>
> > > > > >> >> ---
> > > > > >> >> Mark
>
> > > > > >> > They're also having trouble keeping up with demand.
>
> > > > > >> > My last count was in excess of 1500 already sold,
>
> > > > > >> And that is world wide.
>
> > > > > >> So far this year, the worlds car makers have put out roughly 38,000,000 cars.
>
> > > > > >> Tesla has managed to capture .004% of the market.
>
> > > > > >> Oh yeah, the crowds are forming to buy these things.
>
> > > > > >> --
> > > > > >> Jim Pennino
>
> > > > > > Let's pretend for a second. I've invented a new HVAC
> > > > > > system for the residental market. It is 2X as efficient
> > > > > > as anything Carrier or anyone else has. *But, I've
> > > > > > just started production. You can get one next spring
> > > > > > through you building contractor. It will save people
> > > > > > 50% on their heating and cooling. If asked, NO one
> > > > > > says they don't want one.
>
> > > > > A big unstated factor is the installed price.
>
> > > > Good point. The examination of hvac systems to e cars
> > > > has an additional unparallel comparison, installation. That
> > > > is a one time fee. With e cars, their R & D might be the
> > > > unstated factor which the company must recoupe. So,
> > > > initally, the prices would be higher for them to make a
> > > > profit. Over time...the prices will fall as their R & D
> > > > investment is returned.
>
> > > > > Assuming it is cost competive, then people will fall into groups:
>
> > > > > Non-buyers:
>
> > > > > People that don't want the big capital outlay as long as the current system
> > > > > is working, i.e. the majority of people.
>
> > > > Maybe. But how do the majority of people (in America) fund their
> > > > big capital outlays? *They finance, and make monthly payments.
> > > > What is an electric bill? A monthly payment. Cut your electric
> > > > bill in half and now you can afford your new HVAC system. After
> > > > 4 months you've paid off the installation portion of your investment.

[Mark]

On Sep 27, 9:56*pm, joeturn > wrote:

Also, and I must apologize, but I've responded to
you without revisiting this topic, due to time
constraints. The final conclusion has yet to be
determined.

[a[_3_]]

On Sep 27, 9:56*pm, joeturn > wrote:
> On Sep 25, 5:32*pm, Mark > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 25, 2:54*pm, joeturn > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 25, 10:00*am, Mark > wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 24, 8:17*pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > Mark > wrote:
> > > > > > On Sep 24, 7:16*pm, wrote:
> > > > > >> Mark > wrote:
> > > > > >> > On Sep 24, 6:52*pm, Mark > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> On Sep 24, 6:21*pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > >> >> > Mark > wrote:
> > > > > >> >> > > Huh? *Now Mr.Logajan has also posted the same
> > > > > >> >> > > info in this thread. *Now 2 of us have mentioned this
> > > > > >> >> > > 300 mile/charge electric car. *I don't understand.
>
> > > > > >> >> > You don't understand that the Tesla doesn't claim 300 mile/charge?
>
> > > > > >> >> > --
> > > > > >> >> > Jim Pennino
>
> > > > > >> >> Tesla claims beyond 300 miles on one charge.
>
> > > > > >> >> ---
> > > > > >> >> Mark
>
> > > > > >> > They're also having trouble keeping up with demand.
>
> > > > > >> > My last count was in excess of 1500 already sold,
>
> > > > > >> And that is world wide.
>
> > > > > >> So far this year, the worlds car makers have put out roughly 38,000,000 cars.
>
> > > > > >> Tesla has managed to capture .004% of the market.
>
> > > > > >> Oh yeah, the crowds are forming to buy these things.
>
> > > > > >> --
> > > > > >> Jim Pennino
>
> > > > > > Let's pretend for a second. I've invented a new HVAC
> > > > > > system for the residental market. It is 2X as efficient
> > > > > > as anything Carrier or anyone else has. *But, I've
> > > > > > just started production. You can get one next spring
> > > > > > through you building contractor. It will save people
> > > > > > 50% on their heating and cooling. If asked, NO one
> > > > > > says they don't want one.
>
> > > > > A big unstated factor is the installed price.
>
> > > > Good point. The examination of hvac systems to e cars
> > > > has an additional unparallel comparison, installation. That
> > > > is a one time fee. With e cars, their R & D might be the
> > > > unstated factor which the company must recoupe. So,
> > > > initally, the prices would be higher for them to make a
> > > > profit. Over time...the prices will fall as their R & D
> > > > investment is returned.
>
> > > > > Assuming it is cost competive, then people will fall into groups:
>
> > > > > Non-buyers:
>
> > > > > People that don't want the big capital outlay as long as the current system
> > > > > is working, i.e. the majority of people.
>
> > > > Maybe. But how do the majority of people (in America) fund their
> > > > big capital outlays? *They finance, and make monthly payments.
> > > > What is an electric bill? A monthly payment. Cut your electric
> > > > bill in half and now you can afford your new HVAC system. After
> > > > 4 months you've paid off the installation portion of your investment.

[Dylan Smith[_2_]]

On 2010-09-27, > wrote:
> Lithium batteries, far from being cutting edge technology, were invented
> 100 years ago.
>
> The batteries in todays electric cars have the same basic technology as
> WWI lithium batteries.

I'd have to disagree there.

Lithium batteries of WWI were not the same type of technology, they were
not Li-Ion type (either Li-Ion or LiPoly-ion). Li-Ion was first proposed
by Exxon researchers in the 1970s. The first commercial Li-Ion type
battery went on sale (Sony) only in 1991.

That a battery could be made with lithium in WWI is neither here nor there,
the technology wasn't of the same type. You can make a battery out of
varying effectiveness any dissimilar metals and an electrolyte, just
because one of them may be lithium doesn't make it the same basic technology
as Li-Ion (unless you're about to argue all batteries share the same
basic technology, i.e. use an electrochemical reaction to push electrons
around, in which case you could also argue that the Colossus uses the
same basic technology as an Intel Core 2 duo processor, that of pushing
electrons around to make binary combinations).

[Mark]

On Sep 29, 9:31*am, Dylan Smith > wrote:
> On 2010-09-27, > wrote:
>
> > Lithium batteries, far from being cutting edge technology, were invented
> > 100 years ago.
>
> > The batteries in todays electric cars have the same basic technology as
> > WWI lithium batteries.
>
> I'd have to disagree there.
>
> Lithium batteries of WWI were not the same type of technology, they were
> not Li-Ion type (either Li-Ion or LiPoly-ion). Li-Ion was first proposed
> by Exxon researchers in the 1970s. The first commercial Li-Ion type
> battery went on sale (Sony) only in 1991.
>
> That a battery could be made with lithium in WWI is neither here nor there,
> the technology wasn't of the same type. You can make a battery out of
> varying effectiveness any dissimilar metals and an electrolyte, just
> because one of them may be lithium doesn't make it the same basic technology
> as Li-Ion (unless you're about to argue all batteries share the same
> basic technology, i.e. use an electrochemical reaction to push electrons
> around, in which case you could also argue that the Colossus uses the
> same basic technology as an Intel Core 2 duo processor, that of pushing
> electrons around to make binary combinations).

Don't argue with Jim or he will <snip> your data,
classify it as "babbling", and call you names he learned
in the 4th grade. He does the same thing to the nurses
down at the home when they forget his fruit cup.

--
Mark

[[email protected]]

Dylan Smith > wrote:
> On 2010-09-27, > wrote:
>> Lithium batteries, far from being cutting edge technology, were invented
>> 100 years ago.
>>
>> The batteries in todays electric cars have the same basic technology as
>> WWI lithium batteries.
>
> I'd have to disagree there.
>
> Lithium batteries of WWI were not the same type of technology, they were
> not Li-Ion type (either Li-Ion or LiPoly-ion). Li-Ion was first proposed
> by Exxon researchers in the 1970s. The first commercial Li-Ion type
> battery went on sale (Sony) only in 1991.

Which makes the Li-Ion nearly half a century old and rather supports my
original point that lithium batteries are not cutting edge technology.

Are VRLA batteries in general, and gel cells in particular, the same type
of technology as WWI lead acid batteries?

> That a battery could be made with lithium in WWI is neither here nor there,
> the technology wasn't of the same type. You can make a battery out of
> varying effectiveness any dissimilar metals and an electrolyte, just
> because one of them may be lithium doesn't make it the same basic technology
> as Li-Ion (unless you're about to argue all batteries share the same
> basic technology, i.e. use an electrochemical reaction to push electrons
> around,

Actually one could argue that the basic physics of batteries has not changed
in 2000 years, just the contruction techniques.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:

Nothing.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark]

On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 08:57:47 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

> All things happen for a reason.

Yeah, what a memory. There we were, shoulder to shoulder my hands in
my pants, on the football field, even though it was before a baseball
game, packed in like sardines. Me, my teddy bear and soon-to-be-dead
Tiger Boy, my pussycat.

The smell of cannabis filled the air. I don't smoke, it draws out my
manic depression.

This special night was different from the Grand Funk Railroad or the
Three Dog Night or Liberace concerts I never attended there. In my
mind, I was. On the football field, where they were awaiting to play
a Braves game. In May when NFL football didn't play.

1973 National Football League season
Regular season
Duration *September 16, 1973 - December 16, 1973*

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/1973_NFL_season

At one point the lights went total black-out, then suddenly the entire
room and immediate area (closet) were drenched in blue light. I began
to sing "My Room" by the Beach Boys because I sure as **** wasn't at
Fulton County Stadium on May 4th, 1973.

Nothing but blue. Next came the "smoke" of dry ice. It was like London
fog in blue. I guess, never been out of South Carolina, The
Mississippi of the East.

Yes it was "Stairway to Heaven" time. Boy was I suprised
at what came next. Tiger Boy jumped on my Philco and killed the
turntable. this was the day I decided to kill him.

Suddenly I released hundreds and hundreds of white fleas! It didn't
quite work out as planned. Except for the few that momentarilly
circled, they basically just flew away. **** me again.

But there was no disappointment. Those first few notes of
"Stairway" took us where I needed to be. Up the stairs to the cool
breasts of my Mommy.

There, in the moment listening to the most famous song in the world. I
turned and looked at my Mommy, Judy ( "Judy blue eyes"), and she
said...

"Mark, get your goddamned hands off my tits and go to sleep. You have
school in the morning".

<my son is a freak>

---
Mark

[Mark]

On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 09:29:01 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

> On Sep 27, 9:56*pm, joeturn > wrote:
>
> Also, and I must apologize, but I've responded to
> you without revisiting this topic, due to time
> constraints. The final conclusion has yet to be
> determined but in the meantime let me share with you this.

Yeah, what a memory. There we were, shoulder to shoulder my hands in
my pants, on the football field, even though it was before a baseball
game, packed in like sardines. Me, my teddy bear and soon-to-be-dead
Tiger Boy, my pussycat.

The smell of cannabis filled the air. I don't smoke, it draws out my
manic depression.

This special night was different from the Grand Funk Railroad or the
Three Dog Night or Liberace concerts I never attended there. In my
mind, I was. On the football field, where they were awaiting to play
a Braves game. In May when NFL football didn't play.

1973 National Football League season
Regular season
Duration *September 16, 1973 - December 16, 1973*

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/1973_NFL_season

At one point the lights went total black-out, then suddenly the entire
room and immediate area (closet) were drenched in blue light. I began
to sing "My Room" by the Beach Boys because I sure as **** wasn't at
Fulton County Stadium on May 4th, 1973.

Nothing but blue. Next came the "smoke" of dry ice. It was like London
fog in blue. I guess, never been out of South Carolina, The
Mississippi of the East.

Yes it was "Stairway to Heaven" time. Boy was I suprised
at what came next. Tiger Boy jumped on my Philco and killed the
turntable. this was the day I decided to kill him.

Suddenly I released hundreds and hundreds of white fleas! It didn't
quite work out as planned. Except for the few that momentarilly
circled, they basically just flew away. **** me again.

But there was no disappointment. Those first few notes of
"Stairway" took us where I needed to be. Up the stairs to the cool
breasts of my Mommy.

There, in the moment listening to the most famous song in the world. I
turned and looked at my Mommy, Judy ( "Judy blue eyes"), and she
said...

"Mark, get your goddamned hands off my tits and go to sleep. You have
school in the morning".

<my son is a freak>

---
Mark

[Mark]

On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:31:02 +0000 (UTC), Dylan Smith wrote:

> On 2010-09-27, > wrote:
>> Lithium batteries, far from being cutting edge technology, were invented
>> 100 years ago.
>>
>> The batteries in todays electric cars have the same basic technology as
>> WWI lithium batteries.
>
> I'd have to disagree there.
>
> Lithium batteries of WWI were not the same type of technology, they were
> not Li-Ion type (either Li-Ion or LiPoly-ion). Li-Ion was first proposed
> by Exxon researchers in the 1970s. The first commercial Li-Ion type
> battery went on sale (Sony) only in 1991.
>
> That a battery could be made with lithium in WWI is neither here nor there,
> the technology wasn't of the same type. You can make a battery out of
> varying effectiveness any dissimilar metals and an electrolyte, just
> because one of them may be lithium doesn't make it the same basic technology
> as Li-Ion (unless you're about to argue all batteries share the same
> basic technology, i.e. use an electrochemical reaction to push electrons
> around, in which case you could also argue that the Colossus uses the
> same basic technology as an Intel Core 2 duo processor, that of pushing
> electrons around to make binary combinations).

Don't argue with me or I will <snip> your data,
classify it as "babbling", and call you names I learned
in the 4th grade. I do the same thing to the nurses
down at the mental home when they forget my Thorazine.

--
Mark

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:

Nothing.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark]

On Sep 29, 6:42*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
>
> Nothing.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

That's not me, that's the troll. He's so stupid he has no
idea what ramifications miniature vortex generators have
on a transition reynolds number when the flow velocity is
a freestream velocity outside an unstable laminar boundry
layer. You can check his IP or header and tell it's not me.

---
Mark

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 29, 6:42Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>>
>> Nothing.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>>
>> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> That's not me, that's the troll.

Without putting in more effort than a post from "Mark" deserves, it is
difficult to tell the difference.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark]

On Sep 29, 8:05*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 29, 6:42*pm, wrote:
> >> Mark > wrote:
>
> >> Nothing.
>
> >> --
> >> Jim Pennino
>
> >> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> > That's not me, that's the troll.
>
> Without putting in more effort than a post from "Mark" deserves, it is
> difficult to tell the difference.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Ok. I'm the one that keeps telling you that this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kohlenstoffnanoroehre_Animation.gif

will change the methodology of locomotion.

The imposter basically is babbling about me,
in junior high school terms. He also spams this
group with other people's spam.

---
Mark

[Mark]

On Sep 30, 8:01*am, Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 29, 8:05*pm, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Mark > wrote:
> > > On Sep 29, 6:42*pm, wrote:
> > >> Mark > wrote:
>
> > >> Nothing.
>
> > >> --
> > >> Jim Pennino
>
> > >> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> > > That's not me, that's the troll.
>
> > Without putting in more effort than a post from "Mark" deserves, it is
> > difficult to tell the difference.
>
> > --
> > Jim Pennino
>
> > Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> Ok. I'm the one that keeps telling you that this:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kohlenstoffnanoroehre_Animation.gif
>
> will change the methodology of locomotion.

In other words, a carbon nanotube ultracapacitor (which
I referenced here weeks ago) the size of a car battery,
would weigh 5lbs, not 55lbs as a chem battery does.
They can be fully recharged in 10 minutes, and the
number of charge cycles is infinite.

You replace the space in your wings (or wherever you
store fuel now) with carbon nanotube ultracapacitors.
It will be much lighter than AV gas. Your engine is
replaced with a new evolution of brushless electric
motor. The tork would make your plane an STOL.
Your service ceiling will be extended to flight levels.

And lastly, your plane's upper surface is coated
with photovolatics which can keep your capacitors
charged indefinitely. Now you no longer pay for
fuel. You're flying faster, higher, longer, and...
for free.

---
Mark

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 29, 8:05Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > On Sep 29, 6:42Â*pm, wrote:
>> >> Mark > wrote:
>>
>> >> Nothing.
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Jim Pennino
>>
>> >> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>>
>> > That's not me, that's the troll.
>>
>> Without putting in more effort than a post from "Mark" deserves, it is
>> difficult to tell the difference.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>>
>> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> Ok. I'm the one that keeps telling you that this:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kohlenstoffnanoroehre_Animation.gif

A spinning condom?

> will change the methodology of locomotion.

Nope, here's the future:

http://www.eaa.org/news/2010/2010-09-23_ornithopter.asp

And the power source has been in production for years.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 30, 8:01Â*am, Mark > wrote:
>> On Sep 29, 8:05Â*pm, wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Mark > wrote:
>> > > On Sep 29, 6:42Â*pm, wrote:
>> > >> Mark > wrote:
>>
>> > >> Nothing.
>>
>> > >> --
>> > >> Jim Pennino
>>
>> > >> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>>
>> > > That's not me, that's the troll.
>>
>> > Without putting in more effort than a post from "Mark" deserves, it is
>> > difficult to tell the difference.
>>
>> > --
>> > Jim Pennino
>>
>> > Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>>
>> Ok. I'm the one that keeps telling you that this:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kohlenstoffnanoroehre_Animation.gif
>>
>> will change the methodology of locomotion.
>
> In other words, a carbon nanotube ultracapacitor (which

Do you have any clue how capacitors work, e.g. charge vs voltage curve,
what i(t) = C (dv(t)/dt) implies, etc.?



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark]

On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 16:38:21 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

> On Sep 29, 6:42*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>>
>> Nothing.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>>
>> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> That's not me, that's the troll. He's so stupid he has no
> idea what ramifications miniature vortex generators have
> on a transition reynolds number when the flow velocity is
> a freestream velocity outside an unstable laminar boundry
> layer. You can check his IP or header and tell it's not me.

> But not that I have your attention...


Yeah, what a memory. There we were, shoulder to shoulder my hands in
my pants, on the football field, even though it was before a baseball
game, packed in like sardines. Me, my teddy bear and soon-to-be-dead
Tiger Boy, my pussycat.

The smell of cannabis filled the air. I don't smoke, it draws out my
manic depression.

This special night was different from the Grand Funk Railroad or the
Three Dog Night or Liberace concerts I never attended there. In my
mind, I was. On the football field, where they were awaiting to play
a Braves game. In May when NFL football didn't play.

1973 National Football League season
Regular season
Duration *September 16, 1973 - December 16, 1973*

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/1973_NFL_season

At one point the lights went total black-out, then suddenly the entire
room and immediate area (closet) were drenched in blue light. I began
to sing "My Room" by the Beach Boys because I sure as **** wasn't at
Fulton County Stadium on May 4th, 1973.

Nothing but blue. Next came the "smoke" of dry ice. It was like London
fog in blue. I guess, never been out of South Carolina, The
Mississippi of the East.

Yes it was "Stairway to Heaven" time. Boy was I suprised
at what came next. Tiger Boy jumped on my Philco and killed the
turntable. this was the day I decided to kill him.

Suddenly I released hundreds and hundreds of white fleas! It didn't
quite work out as planned. Except for the few that momentarilly
circled, they basically just flew away. **** me again.

But there was no disappointment. Those first few notes of
"Stairway" took us where I needed to be. Up the stairs to the cool
breasts of my Mommy.

There, in the moment listening to the most famous song in the world. I
turned and looked at my Mommy, Judy ( "Judy blue eyes"), and she
said...

"Mark, get your goddamned hands off my tits and go to sleep. You have
school in the morning".

<my son is a freak>

---
Mark

[Fartacus[_2_]]

On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 05:01:04 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

> The imposter basically is babbling about me,
> in junior high school terms. He also spams this
> group with other people's spam. He takes my words
> and kicks my ass with them
>
> ---
> Mark

Hm. Steel toed boot we hope.

[Mark]

On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 15:32:50 -0000, wrote:

> A spinning condom?

Yeah, what a memory. There we were, shoulder to shoulder my hands in
my pants, on the football field, even though it was before a baseball
game, packed in like sardines. Me, my teddy bear and soon-to-be-dead
Tiger Boy, my pussycat.

The smell of cannabis filled the air. I don't smoke, it draws out my
manic depression.

This special night was different from the Grand Funk Railroad or the
Three Dog Night or Liberace concerts I never attended there. In my
mind, I was. On the football field, where they were awaiting to play
a Braves game. In May when NFL football didn't play.

1973 National Football League season
Regular season
Duration *September 16, 1973 - December 16, 1973*

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/1973_NFL_season

At one point the lights went total black-out, then suddenly the entire
room and immediate area (closet) were drenched in blue light. I began
to sing "My Room" by the Beach Boys because I sure as **** wasn't at
Fulton County Stadium on May 4th, 1973.

Nothing but blue. Next came the "smoke" of dry ice. It was like London
fog in blue. I guess, never been out of South Carolina, The
Mississippi of the East.

Yes it was "Stairway to Heaven" time. Boy was I suprised
at what came next. Tiger Boy jumped on my Philco and killed the
turntable. this was the day I decided to kill him.

Suddenly I released hundreds and hundreds of white fleas! It didn't
quite work out as planned. Except for the few that momentarilly
circled, they basically just flew away. **** me again.

But there was no disappointment. Those first few notes of
"Stairway" took us where I needed to be. Up the stairs to the cool
breasts of my Mommy.

There, in the moment listening to the most famous song in the world. I
turned and looked at my Mommy, Judy ( "Judy blue eyes"), and she
said...

"Mark, get your goddamned hands off my tits and go to sleep. You have
school in the morning".

<my son is a freak>

---
Mark

[Mark]

On Sep 30, 11:37*am, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 30, 8:01*am, Mark > wrote:
> >> On Sep 29, 8:05*pm, wrote:
>
> >> > Mark > wrote:
> >> > > On Sep 29, 6:42*pm, wrote:
> >> > >> Mark > wrote:
>
> >> > >> Nothing.
>
> >> > >> --
> >> > >> Jim Pennino
>
> >> > >> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> >> > > That's not me, that's the troll.
>
> >> > Without putting in more effort than a post from "Mark" deserves, it is
> >> > difficult to tell the difference.
>
> >> > --
> >> > Jim Pennino
>
> >> > Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> >> Ok. I'm the one that keeps telling you that this:
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kohlenstoffnanoroehre_Animation.gif
>
> >> will change the methodology of locomotion.
>
> > In other words, a carbon nanotube ultracapacitor (which
>
> Do you have any clue how capacitors work, e.g. charge vs voltage curve,
> what i(t) = C (dv(t)/dt) implies, etc.?
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I'm the one that should be asking you. Now watch
these videos and enter the 21st century. See how
we will power our planes and cars soon.

Carbon nanotube ultra capacitor (which I've told you about 3 times)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCIN0-rt2xw

Carbon nanobatteries
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8UwBP4yVgM&p=8E28A2B2422F52CB&playnext=1&index=41

Nanotitanate (which I've already explained once)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-Zv5RFgmWY&feature=related

--
Mark

[Mark]

On Sep 30, 6:28*pm, Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 30, 11:37*am, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Mark > wrote:
> > > On Sep 30, 8:01*am, Mark > wrote:
> > >> On Sep 29, 8:05*pm, wrote:
>
> > >> > Mark > wrote:
> > >> > > On Sep 29, 6:42*pm, wrote:
> > >> > >> Mark > wrote:
>
> > >> > >> Nothing.
>
> > >> > >> --
> > >> > >> Jim Pennino
>
> > >> > >> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> > >> > > That's not me, that's the troll.
>
> > >> > Without putting in more effort than a post from "Mark" deserves, it is
> > >> > difficult to tell the difference.
>
> > >> > --
> > >> > Jim Pennino
>
> > >> > Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> > >> Ok. I'm the one that keeps telling you that this:
>
> > >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kohlenstoffnanoroehre_Animation.gif
>
> > >> will change the methodology of locomotion.
>
> > > In other words, a carbon nanotube ultracapacitor (which
>
> > Do you have any clue how capacitors work, e.g. charge vs voltage curve,
> > what i(t) = C (dv(t)/dt) implies, etc.?
>
> > --
> > Jim Pennino
>
> > Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I'm the one that should be asking you. Now watch
> these videos and enter the 21st century. See how
> we will power our planes and cars soon.
>
> Carbon nanotube ultra capacitor (which I've told you about 3 times)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCIN0-rt2xw
>
> Carbon nanobatterieshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8UwBP4yVgM&p=8E28A2B2422F52CB&playnex...
>
> Nanotitanate (which I've already explained once)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-Zv5RFgmWY&feature=related
>
> --
> Mark- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Also look back in this thread. I already told
everyone that you can charge your airplane or
car in 10 minutes. Then you can go over 300miles.
THIS IS ALREADY. But improvements are on
the way.

---
Mark

[Mark]

On Sep 30, 11:32*am, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 29, 8:05*pm, wrote:
> >> Mark > wrote:
> >> > On Sep 29, 6:42*pm, wrote:
> >> >> Mark > wrote:
>
> >> >> Nothing.
>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Jim Pennino
>
> >> >> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> >> > That's not me, that's the troll.
>
> >> Without putting in more effort than a post from "Mark" deserves, it is
> >> difficult to tell the difference.
>
> >> --
> >> Jim Pennino
>
> >> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> > Ok. I'm the one that keeps telling you that this:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kohlenstoffnanoroehre_Animation.gif
>
> A spinning condom?
>
> > will change the methodology of locomotion.
>
> Nope, here's the future:
>
> http://www.eaa.org/news/2010/2010-09-23_ornithopter.asp
>
> And the power source has been in production for years.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Nothing.

--
Mark

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 30, 11:37Â*am, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > On Sep 30, 8:01Â*am, Mark > wrote:
>> >> On Sep 29, 8:05Â*pm, wrote:
>>
>> >> > Mark > wrote:
>> >> > > On Sep 29, 6:42Â*pm, wrote:
>> >> > >> Mark > wrote:
>>
>> >> > >> Nothing.
>>
>> >> > >> --
>> >> > >> Jim Pennino
>>
>> >> > >> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>>
>> >> > > That's not me, that's the troll.
>>
>> >> > Without putting in more effort than a post from "Mark" deserves, it is
>> >> > difficult to tell the difference.
>>
>> >> > --
>> >> > Jim Pennino
>>
>> >> > Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>>
>> >> Ok. I'm the one that keeps telling you that this:
>>
>> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kohlenstoffnanoroehre_Animation.gif
>>
>> >> will change the methodology of locomotion.
>>
>> > In other words, a carbon nanotube ultracapacitor (which
>>
>> Do you have any clue how capacitors work, e.g. charge vs voltage curve,
>> what i(t) = C (dv(t)/dt) implies, etc.?
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>>
>> Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I'm the one that should be asking you. Now watch
> these videos and enter the 21st century. See how
> we will power our planes and cars soon.
>
> Carbon nanotube ultra capacitor (which I've told you about 3 times)
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCIN0-rt2xw

Not a chance in hell.

i(t) = C (dv(t)/dt)


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Dylan Smith[_2_]]

On 2010-09-29, > wrote:
>> Lithium batteries of WWI were not the same type of technology, they were
>> not Li-Ion type (either Li-Ion or LiPoly-ion). Li-Ion was first proposed
>> by Exxon researchers in the 1970s. The first commercial Li-Ion type
>> battery went on sale (Sony) only in 1991.
>
> Which makes the Li-Ion nearly half a century old and rather supports my
> original point that lithium batteries are not cutting edge technology.

Given it was only proposed in the 1970s, important technology to construct
them was only discovered in 1982, and it was only commercialised in 1991,
at most as a practical technology it is not even 30 years old.

You must count in octal if you think a technology that was only made
practical in 1982, and only made commercial in 1991 is "nearly
50 years old"! Even if it were practical in 1970, that's still 20% shy
of 50 years old.

Lithium ion and lithium ion polymer is still a relatively new battery
technology that is still undergoing large improvements in a fairly short
timespan. Your argument is akin to saying "an 32nm Intel CPU is not
cutting technology" because Charles Babbage thought about digital computing
well over 100 years ago (or that it still has some CPU instructions
that date back to the Intel 8080 in the 1970s). Having seen Li-poly batteries
make worthwhile and substantial improvements in just 2 or 3 years, I'd
say it's hardly a "done technology". Like any technology, most of the
potential comes after the original academic lab work, most of the improvement
is manufacturing techniques and refinements, but these refinements can
make orders of magnitude differences over a period of time.

[[email protected]]

Dylan Smith > wrote:
> On 2010-09-29, > wrote:
>>> Lithium batteries of WWI were not the same type of technology, they were
>>> not Li-Ion type (either Li-Ion or LiPoly-ion). Li-Ion was first proposed
>>> by Exxon researchers in the 1970s. The first commercial Li-Ion type
>>> battery went on sale (Sony) only in 1991.
>>
>> Which makes the Li-Ion nearly half a century old and rather supports my
>> original point that lithium batteries are not cutting edge technology.
>
> Given it was only proposed in the 1970s, important technology to construct
> them was only discovered in 1982, and it was only commercialised in 1991,
> at most as a practical technology it is not even 30 years old.
>
> You must count in octal if you think a technology that was only made
> practical in 1982, and only made commercial in 1991 is "nearly
> 50 years old"! Even if it were practical in 1970, that's still 20% shy
> of 50 years old.
>
> Lithium ion and lithium ion polymer is still a relatively new battery
> technology that is still undergoing large improvements in a fairly short
> timespan. Your argument is akin to saying "an 32nm Intel CPU is not
> cutting technology" because Charles Babbage thought about digital computing
> well over 100 years ago (or that it still has some CPU instructions
> that date back to the Intel 8080 in the 1970s). Having seen Li-poly batteries
> make worthwhile and substantial improvements in just 2 or 3 years, I'd
> say it's hardly a "done technology". Like any technology, most of the
> potential comes after the original academic lab work, most of the improvement
> is manufacturing techniques and refinements, but these refinements can
> make orders of magnitude differences over a period of time.

The first experimentation with lithium batteries was by G. N. Lewis in 1912.

That makes the basic battery chemistry about 100 years old.

Rather than being "only proposed in the 1970s", the first lithium batteries
were sold in the 1970's.

That makes the commericial lithium battery about 40 years old.

The lithium ion battery was under development in 1980 and the first were sold
in 1991.

Just as the lead acid battery has improved over the years, e.g. VRLA batteries
in general and the gel cell in particular, so to has the lithium battery.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[a[_3_]]

On Oct 4, 11:29*am, wrote:
> Dylan Smith > wrote:
> > On 2010-09-29, > wrote:
> >>> Lithium batteries of WWI were not the same type of technology, they were
> >>> not Li-Ion type (either Li-Ion or LiPoly-ion). Li-Ion was first proposed
> >>> by Exxon researchers in the 1970s. The first commercial Li-Ion type
> >>> battery went on sale (Sony) only in 1991.
>
> >> Which makes the Li-Ion nearly half a century old and rather supports my
> >> original point that lithium batteries are not cutting edge technology.
>
> > Given it was only proposed in the 1970s, important technology to construct
> > them was only discovered in 1982, and it was only commercialised in 1991,
> > at most as a practical technology it is not even 30 years old.
>
> > You must count in octal if you think a technology that was only made
> > practical in 1982, and only made commercial in 1991 is "nearly
> > 50 years old"! Even if it were practical in 1970, that's still 20% shy
> > of 50 years old.
>
> > Lithium ion and lithium ion polymer is still a relatively new battery
> > technology that is still undergoing large improvements in a fairly short
> > timespan. Your argument is akin to saying "an 32nm Intel CPU is not
> > cutting technology" because Charles Babbage thought about digital computing
> > well over 100 years ago (or that it still has some CPU instructions
> > that date back to the Intel 8080 in the 1970s). Having seen Li-poly batteries
> > make worthwhile and substantial improvements in just 2 or 3 years, I'd
> > say it's hardly a "done technology". Like any technology, most of the
> > potential comes after the original academic lab work, most of the improvement
> > is manufacturing techniques and refinements, but these refinements can
> > make orders of magnitude differences over a period of time.
>
> The first experimentation with lithium batteries was by G. N. Lewis in 1912.
>
> That makes the basic battery chemistry about 100 years old.
>
> Rather than being "only proposed in the 1970s", the first lithium batteries
> were sold in the 1970's.
>
> That makes the commericial lithium battery about 40 years old.
>
> The lithium ion battery was under development in 1980 and the first were sold
> in 1991.
>
> Just as the lead acid battery has improved over the years, e.g. VRLA batteries
> in general and the gel cell in particular, so to has the lithium battery.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Good history lesson, but it's fair to say Li ion technology is still
evolving. As importantly, I think the underlying physics preclude it
getting anywhere near the energy density (per pound or per cubic inch)
that hydrocarbons provide.

Regarding nano carbon technology and capacitors, to raise that issue
again, the energy is really stored in the electric field between the
plates. The voltage gradient/ dielectric constant combination needed
to get the energy densities needed (something a little more than
freshman physics needed here) can be calculated. Find a real material,
nano or macro, that can deal with that and you'll have a winner. I
don't think carbon is the answer. I don't think there is a realizable
material that is the answer.

Now, imagine you are a hiring authority in a company that's trying to
push the limits of electrical energy storage technology. What
knowledge set would you expect of potential marketing employees --
technical, or Ponzi?

[[email protected]]

a > wrote:

> Good history lesson, but it's fair to say Li ion technology is still
> evolving.

As is, and has been, all battery technology.

> As importantly, I think the underlying physics preclude it
> getting anywhere near the energy density (per pound or per cubic inch)
> that hydrocarbons provide.

That or any other type of battery for that matter.

The only technology I see as having a chance is fuel cell technology, but
it won't happen any time soon if at all.

> Regarding nano carbon technology and capacitors, to raise that issue
> again, the energy is really stored in the electric field between the
> plates. The voltage gradient/ dielectric constant combination needed
> to get the energy densities needed (something a little more than
> freshman physics needed here) can be calculated. Find a real material,
> nano or macro, that can deal with that and you'll have a winner. I
> don't think carbon is the answer. I don't think there is a realizable
> material that is the answer.

Agreed and there is still the little problem of how a capacitor works, i.e.
the charge versus voltage curve says you can not just connect a motor to a
capacitor and get something useful.

> Now, imagine you are a hiring authority in a company that's trying to
> push the limits of electrical energy storage technology. What
> knowledge set would you expect of potential marketing employees --
> technical, or Ponzi?

For marketing, Ponzi, also to write the grant requests.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[a[_3_]]

On Oct 4, 1:00*pm, wrote:
> a > wrote:
> > Good history lesson, but it's fair to say Li ion technology is still
> > evolving.
>
> As is, and has been, all battery technology.
>
> > As importantly, I think the underlying physics preclude it
> > getting anywhere near the energy density (per pound or per cubic inch)
> > that hydrocarbons provide.
>
> That or any other type of battery for that matter.
>
> The only technology I see as having a chance is fuel cell technology, but
> it won't happen any time soon if at all.
>
> > Regarding nano carbon technology and capacitors, to raise that issue
> > again, the energy is really stored in the electric field between the
> > plates. The voltage gradient/ dielectric constant combination *needed
> > to get the energy densities needed (something a little more than
> > freshman physics needed here) can be calculated. Find a real material,
> > nano or macro, that can deal with that and you'll have a winner. I
> > don't think carbon is the answer. I don't think there is a realizable
> > material that is the answer.
>
> Agreed and there is still the little problem of how a capacitor works, i.e.
> the charge versus voltage curve says you can not just connect a motor to a
> capacitor and get something useful.
>
> > Now, imagine you are a hiring authority in a company that's trying to
> > push the limits of electrical energy storage technology. What
> > knowledge set would you expect of potential marketing employees --
> > technical, or Ponzi?
>
> For marketing, Ponzi, also to write the grant requests.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

I'm not especially worried about working around the discharge curve of
a cap to something that would drive a motor. My first approach would
be to use some form of dc motor with windings that could be switched
to adapt to the curve. Of course the discharge rate of the cap would
be much faster as voltage dropped. Probably a 50% drop in voltage,
taking out 75% of the energy, would be a practical limit (which is a
lot like unusable fuel in the tank!).

Real life considerations do have a way of driving a stake into the
heart of some dreams that violate basic principles. Who knows, someone
may be willing to drop 10^7 bucks into what we technical types might
call 'wet dream science'.

[[email protected]]

a > wrote:
> On Oct 4, 1:00Â*pm, wrote:
>> a > wrote:
>> > Good history lesson, but it's fair to say Li ion technology is still
>> > evolving.
>>
>> As is, and has been, all battery technology.
>>
>> > As importantly, I think the underlying physics preclude it
>> > getting anywhere near the energy density (per pound or per cubic inch)
>> > that hydrocarbons provide.
>>
>> That or any other type of battery for that matter.
>>
>> The only technology I see as having a chance is fuel cell technology, but
>> it won't happen any time soon if at all.
>>
>> > Regarding nano carbon technology and capacitors, to raise that issue
>> > again, the energy is really stored in the electric field between the
>> > plates. The voltage gradient/ dielectric constant combination Â*needed
>> > to get the energy densities needed (something a little more than
>> > freshman physics needed here) can be calculated. Find a real material,
>> > nano or macro, that can deal with that and you'll have a winner. I
>> > don't think carbon is the answer. I don't think there is a realizable
>> > material that is the answer.
>>
>> Agreed and there is still the little problem of how a capacitor works, i.e.
>> the charge versus voltage curve says you can not just connect a motor to a
>> capacitor and get something useful.
>>
>> > Now, imagine you are a hiring authority in a company that's trying to
>> > push the limits of electrical energy storage technology. What
>> > knowledge set would you expect of potential marketing employees --
>> > technical, or Ponzi?
>>
>> For marketing, Ponzi, also to write the grant requests.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>>
>> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> I'm not especially worried about working around the discharge curve of
> a cap to something that would drive a motor. My first approach would
> be to use some form of dc motor with windings that could be switched
> to adapt to the curve. Of course the discharge rate of the cap would
> be much faster as voltage dropped. Probably a 50% drop in voltage,
> taking out 75% of the energy, would be a practical limit (which is a
> lot like unusable fuel in the tank!).

You also need speed control, so overall you need some sort of fancy
DC-DC converter.

Allowing for "unusable fuel in the tank" means the capacitor has to be
even bigger.

> Real life considerations do have a way of driving a stake into the
> heart of some dreams that violate basic principles. Who knows, someone
> may be willing to drop 10^7 bucks into what we technical types might
> call 'wet dream science'.

Just call the "wet dream" green with appropriate hype and swim in government
bucks.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[joeturn]

On Sep 28, 4:59*pm, a > wrote:
> On Sep 27, 9:56*pm, joeturn > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 25, 5:32*pm, Mark > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 25, 2:54*pm, joeturn > wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 25, 10:00*am, Mark > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 24, 8:17*pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > > Mark > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sep 24, 7:16*pm, wrote:
> > > > > > >> Mark > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > On Sep 24, 6:52*pm, Mark > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> On Sep 24, 6:21*pm, wrote:
>
> > > > > > >> >> > Mark > wrote:
> > > > > > >> >> > > Huh? *Now Mr.Logajan has also posted the same
> > > > > > >> >> > > info in this thread. *Now 2 of us have mentioned this
> > > > > > >> >> > > 300 mile/charge electric car. *I don't understand.
>
> > > > > > >> >> > You don't understand that the Tesla doesn't claim 300 mile/charge?
>
> > > > > > >> >> > --
> > > > > > >> >> > Jim Pennino
>
> > > > > > >> >> Tesla claims beyond 300 miles on one charge.
>
> > > > > > >> >> ---
> > > > > > >> >> Mark
>
> > > > > > >> > They're also having trouble keeping up with demand.
>
> > > > > > >> > My last count was in excess of 1500 already sold,
>
> > > > > > >> And that is world wide.
>
> > > > > > >> So far this year, the worlds car makers have put out roughly 38,000,000 cars.
>
> > > > > > >> Tesla has managed to capture .004% of the market.
>
> > > > > > >> Oh yeah, the crowds are forming to buy these things.
>
> > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > >> Jim Pennino
>
> > > > > > > Let's pretend for a second. I've invented a new HVAC
> > > > > > > system for the residental market. It is 2X as efficient
> > > > > > > as anything Carrier or anyone else has. *But, I've
> > > > > > > just started production. You can get one next spring
> > > > > > > through you building contractor. It will save people
> > > > > > > 50% on their heating and cooling. If asked, NO one
> > > > > > > says they don't want one.
>
> > > > > > A big unstated factor is the installed price.
>
> > > > > Good point. The examination of hvac systems to e cars
> > > > > has an additional unparallel comparison, installation. That
> > > > > is a one time fee. With e cars, their R & D might be the
> > > > > unstated factor which the company must recoupe. So,
> > > > > initally, the prices would be higher for them to make a
> > > > > profit. Over time...the prices will fall as their R & D
> > > > > investment is returned.
>
> > > > > > Assuming it is cost competive, then people will fall into groups:
>
> > > > > > Non-buyers:
>
> > > > > > People that don't want the big capital outlay as long as the current system
> > > > > > is working, i.e. the majority of people.
>
> > > > > Maybe. But how do the majority of people (in America) fund their
> > > > > big capital outlays? *They finance, and make monthly payments.
> > > > > What is an electric bill? A monthly payment. Cut your electric
> > > > > bill in half and now you can afford your new HVAC system. After
> > > > > 4 months you've paid off the installation portion of your investment.
> > > > > Later you've paid off the entire new system, and freed up monthly
> > > > > cash.
>
> > > > > > Buyers:
>
> > > > > > People who need the existing system replaced, i.e. some small fraction.
>
> > > > > But, *everyone* needs this new HVAC system. It's warmer, it's
> > > > > cooler, it's quieter, it takes up less room, and it has a lifetime
> > > > > warranty.
>
> > > > > > People with "needs" that require the system run 24/7, have huge utility
> > > > > > bills, and have the capital to replace the system, i.e. some small fraction.
>
> > > > > Ok, this group needs it even worse, and can act immediately.
>
> > > > > > Wealth enviro-whinners that will buy and pay for anything with a "green"
> > > > > > lable on it, i.e. some small fraction.
>
> > > > > Agreed.
>
> > > > > > If it is not cost competitive, buyer group 1 gets even smaller
>
> > > > > But...it cuts your electric/gas bill down from 450/month to
> > > > > 225/month.
>
> > > > > >and
> > > > > > buy something else while group 2 will do an economic analysis of capital
> > > > > > cost versus saved utilities cost.
>
> > > > > Well, in all actuality, what would really occur is that your
> > > > > building contractor would steer you into the new system, and
> > > > > infomercials would saturate the media to convince the large
> > > > > majority of people who make impulse purchases.
>
> > > > > <thinking>
>
> > > > > So...you're really a good guy, aren't you? *And...you feel an
> > > > > allegiance to this group and feel like you're pretty good at
> > > > > running off interloping phonies. If so, that's commendable.
> > > > > Or, you're a good guy with a gruff personality, kinda loose
> > > > > with details, but everyone accepts that, because you're a
> > > > > good guy. You may act like an asshole to me, but I see
> > > > > through that. That is why I feel so bad about calling you a
> > > > > pinhead in a post title. Just bear in mind that I'm an
> > > > > aggressive competetor, not a troll, and no one pushes me
> > > > > around. If other pilots will post piloting questions and
> > > > > stories, then I can go back to just lurking.
>
> > > > > <g> Or I might get back on my bicycle at the airport
> > > > > * * * *and ride around with my magic headphones that
> > > > > * * * *pick up alien spacecraft.
>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Mark
>
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Jim Pennino- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > As I was stalking the spamologist Edward,I was intriged with your
> > > > thread.The Tesla car could be made to be limitless,if it contained one
> > > > of these to charge the battery while in motion!''However the
> > > > illuminati has too much to loose to allow production of a replacement
> > > > for the internal combustion engine!
>
> > > > The power companies would go out of buisiness and Obama would have to
> > > > tear down all those power lines and do away with nuclear facilties as
> > > > thats their intended purpose to furnish electricity instead of
> > > > building nuclear weapons!
>
> > > > So free energy devices are too much of a threat to big buisiness $$$$$$
> > > > $$$$$$
>
> > > >http://www.magniwork.com/?hop=promo15391-Hidequotedtext -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > That machine is an illusion. You cannot violate the law of
> > > thermodynamics. Perpetual motion is impossible.
>
> > >http://burtleburtle.net/bob/physics/whythere.html
>
> > > ---
> > > Mark- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Ahh, you've disappointed me Mark!
>
> > I was sure you would pick up on the fact that free energy was directly
> > censored out of the equation by big buisiness!
>
> > Remember Kaku said physics was off by a factor of 20 after being
> > proven wrong!
>
> > Now you have swallowed the idea that a perpetual motion machine is
> > imposible!?!?
>
> > Now do some digging ole Albert says Energy is equal to mass times the
> > time constant squared!
>
> > This means anything that has motion produces energy!
>
> > The electro-magnetic reaction will produce endless motion as a motor.
> > In reverse tecnology produces power(the generator/alternator).
>
> > Now to replace the electro magnets within an alternator/motor with
> > permanet magnets will cause passing the coil through the magnetic
> > field will produce Electricity without any power.
>
> > Trust me here it is being done! The illusion is censored
> > tecnology(free energy)<I;-)
>
> You wrote
>
> > Now to replace the electro magnets within an alternator/motor with
> > permanet magnets will cause passing the coil through the magnetic
> > field will produce Electricity without any power.
>
> > Trust me here it is being done! The illusion is censored
> > tecnology(free energy)<I;-)
>
> But you've overlooked that it takes power to move a wire in a closed
> circuit through a magnetic field, even if the field is developed by a
> permanent magnet. This is classic freshman physics. How much power
> does it take? At least as much as is generated by voltage and current
> developed. Those little electric motors that run toys are in fact
> wires moving in a magnetic field *developed by a permanent magnet, but
> they take batteries to run.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You guys have got off on a tangent that has nothing to do with what I
said! Meaning the Electric Motor car which is powered by batteries can
be altered with a self charging apperatus onboard as it runs it can
also produce recharging electricity for the batteries!

Now the reason this is not at the Home Depot is because the internal
combustion engine will be made obsolete and that would stop dependancy
on oil. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Those people that have too much money will loose it if they try to
finance an alternative power source!

JP Morgan for instance killed Teslas free energy years ago and the
illuminati has made a fortune off selling their own personal power
source powered by oil $$$$$

A continuation of his work by Morey got him killed and Otis T, Carr
put in an asylum by the powers to be!

[joeturn]

This is not a joke the law of physics is a joke!

This was censorship by the elite!

http://viewzone2.com/teslax.html

[joeturn]

On Oct 12, 2:08*am, joeturn > wrote:
> This is not a joke the law of physics is a joke!
>
> This was censorship by the elite!
>
> http://viewzone2.com/teslax.html

Where did you go Mark, after all them gimacks to proove perpetual
motion machines were against the laws of physics?

Well "by golly" that last paragraph must have been a show stopper!
24"by12" by 6" in the seat next to him and he carried it himself!

[joeturn]

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

I just wonder how many 1N34A can be put in a box that size then
amplified?

[Dylan Smith[_2_]]

On 2010-10-04, > wrote:
> The first experimentation with lithium batteries was by G. N. Lewis in 1912.
>
> That makes the basic battery chemistry about 100 years old.

Those are non-rechargable lithium metal batteries, not lithium ion batteries.
They aren't the same thing. Lithium metal rechargable batteries aren't practical
(they can't be made safe). It took the development of lithium-ion (not lithium
metal) batteries, which was first proposed in the 1970s, to make a rechargable
lithium battery.

A lithium metal battery and a lithium ion battery isn't the same thing. As I said,
to compare a lithium metal battery and a lithium ion battery is a bit like saying
a Core 2 duo is old hat because Babbage had experimented with digital computing.

[[email protected]]

Dylan Smith > wrote:
> On 2010-10-04, > wrote:
>> The first experimentation with lithium batteries was by G. N. Lewis in 1912.
>>
>> That makes the basic battery chemistry about 100 years old.
>
> Those are non-rechargable lithium metal batteries, not lithium ion batteries.

The lithium ion form of the lithium based battery is about 30 years old.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[joeturn]

http://www.cheniere.org/books/excalibur/moray.htm

Very interesting these laws of physics to steer the herd in a desired
direction!

http://www.cheniere.org/books/part1/teslaweapons.htm

[joeturn]

PS:

If Einstien and Kaku were not Government pupits they too would have
resigned!

The Broken Law of Physics!

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/

[Mark]

On Oct 15, 1:44*am, joeturn > wrote:
> PS:
>
> *If Einstien and Kaku were not Government pupits they too would have
> resigned!
>
> The Broken Law of Physics!
>
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physic...

Congratulatons! You have indelibly categorized
yourself into the delusional sector.

Now, this is an aviation group for pilots. You are
interested in science/energy, yes? How can our
small planes fly for free at high speeds? Keep in
mind that "over unity" has been soundly disproved.

No one can stop people with money from developing
any technology they feel like. No one. Now, did
Tesla actually invent systems which the governments
want to keep a secret? Answer: actually...yes.

Ok go to this website: www.barnstormers.com

Look at such planes as the Long EZ or go to
YouTube and find small, fast, affordable sleek
airplanes. Now convert them to megapowered
electric airplanes with ultimate torque that
cuts the take-off roll down to 33%. How high can
they fly now that they don't need engine oxygen?
What if new technology solar panels cover the
upper surface to charge nano-dense internal
batteries. Can you now cross the ocean in
an Arion Lighting or a Piper Sport plane?

---
Mark

[LowWaterMark]

On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 04:30:49 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

> Congratulatons! You have indelibly categorized
> yourself into the delusional sector.
>
> Now, this is an aviation group for pilots.

> Anyone know one who can fly me around?

Sure but since you lost your job, what are you gonna pay me with? Head
beans?

[george]

On Oct 16, 3:27*am, LowWaterMark >
wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 04:30:49 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:
> > Congratulatons! *You have indelibly categorized
> > yourself into the delusional sector.
>
> > Now, this is an aviation group for pilots.
> > Anyone know one who can fly me around?
>
> Sure but since you lost your job, what are you gonna pay me with? Head
> beans?

To 'carry' Mark around I'd suggest the minimum of a Sky Caravan at
least.
That door makes loading palletised cargo a breeze (so I'm told)

[george]

On Oct 16, 8:27*am, george > wrote:
> On Oct 16, 3:27*am, LowWaterMark >
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 04:30:49 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:
> > > Congratulatons! *You have indelibly categorized
> > > yourself into the delusional sector.
>
> > > Now, this is an aviation group for pilots.
> > > Anyone know one who can fly me around?
>
> > Sure but since you lost your job, what are you gonna pay me with? Head
> > beans?
>
> To 'carry' Mark around I'd suggest the minimum of a Sky Caravan at
> least.
> *That *door makes loading palletised cargo a breeze (so I'm told)

Make that the Super Cargo Master, it carries more lard further

[joeturn]

On Oct 15, 7:30*am, Mark > wrote:
> On Oct 15, 1:44*am, joeturn > wrote:
>
> > PS:
>
> > *If Einstien and Kaku were not Government pupits they too would have
> > resigned!
>
> > The Broken Law of Physics!
>
> >http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physic...
>
> Congratulatons! *You have indelibly categorized
> yourself into the delusional sector.
>
> Now, this is an aviation group for pilots. You are
> interested in science/energy, yes? *How can our
> small planes fly for free at high speeds? *Keep in
> mind that "over unity" has been soundly disproved.

Sure they can Area 51 is full of small electric planes that fly very
fast!

Tesla built the first flying saucer and years later Otis T. Carr got
put away for continuing his work.

Thomas Herny Morey was killed for his prestation of teslas gamanian
capacitor(diode/free energy)
>
> No one can stop people with money from developing
> any technology they feel like. No one. *Now, did
> Tesla actually invent systems which the governments
> want to keep a secret? *Answer: *actually...yes.

The illuminati says whats allowed and replacing oil is not!

Physisist go along with the facod in order to keep their jobs/lives
same as NASA ASTRONAUTS back the Man on the Moon thingy$$$$$$
>
> Ok go to this website:www.barnstormers.com
>
> Look at such planes as the Long EZ or go to
> YouTube and find small, fast, affordable sleek
> airplanes. Now convert them to megapowered
> electric airplanes with ultimate torque that
> cuts the take-off roll down to 33%. How high can
> they fly now that they don't need engine oxygen?
> What if new technology solar panels cover the
> upper surface to charge nano-dense internal
> batteries. *Can you now cross the ocean in
> an Arion Lighting or a Piper Sport plane?
>
> ---
> Mark

[joeturn]

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Searl_Effect_Generator_%28SEG%29

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xnh5Nd4DzM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfjG7fo3y4k

[joeturn]

On Oct 14, 12:25*pm, wrote:
> Dylan Smith > wrote:
> > On 2010-10-04, > wrote:
> >> The first experimentation with lithium batteries was by G. N. Lewis in 1912.
>
> >> That makes the basic battery chemistry about 100 years old.
>
> > Those are non-rechargable lithium metal batteries, not lithium ion batteries.
>
> The lithium ion form of the lithium based battery is about 30 years old.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

http://www.badarchaeology.net/data/ooparts/batteries.php

[joeturn]

http://www.reformation.org/nikola-tesla.html

Einstein invented absolutely NOTHING that was of any benefit to the
human race.


Even the famous equation E=MC2 was already known in 1875.


It seems that he was just a smokescreen to hide the identity of the
great scientist and inventor Nikola Tesla.


Tesla had nothing but contempt for the "physics" of Einstein. He
absolutely believed in the ether and the possibly of taking
electricity out of this ether without splitting the atom and causing
dangerous radiation. Tesla said at a lecture in 1891

[[email protected]]

joeturn > wrote:

Some babbling nonsense about Tesla in an aviation group.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[joeturn]

On Dec 15, 11:43*pm, wrote:
> joeturn > wrote:
>
> Some babbling nonsense about Tesla in an aviation group.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

So your saying that a reply to a thread of locamotion being replaced
by Tesla's electric car technology is babble in an avionics forum!

Well I did not start the thread,but it needed to be shown that the
interested party thinks it is new technolgy when it is over a 100
years old! It was hidden from the public by the North Atlantic
Alliance.They even built the Titanic so they could kill off Astor his
financier. Oil products and gas combustion engines depended on
silencing Nicola Tesla and his free energy gift to the world!

Source:

http://www.pacinst.com/terrorists/chapter5/titanic.html

[[email protected]]

joeturn > wrote:
> On Dec 15, 11:43Â*pm, wrote:
>> joeturn > wrote:
>>
>> Some babbling nonsense about Tesla in an aviation group.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>>
>> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> So your saying that a reply to a thread of locamotion being replaced
> by Tesla's electric car technology is babble in an avionics forum!

It certainly is off topic for the group, but since you insist...

"Electric Cars: Not Ready for Prime Time"

http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/922.pdf

<snip delusional babble>


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Ari Silverstein]

On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 19:43:15 -0800 (PST), joeturn wrote:

> Well I did not start the thread,but it needed to be shown that the
> interested party thinks it is new technolgy when it is over a 100
> years old! It was hidden from the public by the North Atlantic
> Alliance.They even built the Titanic so they could kill off Astor his
> financier.

Indica or sativa?
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[george]

On Dec 19, 4:43*pm, joeturn > wrote:

> Well I did not start the thread,but it needed to be shown that the
> interested party thinks it is new technolgy when it is over a 100
> years old! It was hidden from the public by the North Atlantic
> Alliance.They even built the Titanic so they could kill off Astor his
> financier. Oil products and gas combustion engines depended on
> silencing *Nicola Tesla and his free energy gift to the world!
>
:-)
You should take that to alt.conspiracy. They need a new subject

[joeturn]

On Dec 19, 12:50*pm, wrote:
> joeturn > wrote:
> > On Dec 15, 11:43*pm, wrote:
> >> joeturn > wrote:
>
> >> Some babbling nonsense about Tesla in an aviation group.
>
> >> --
> >> Jim Pennino
>
> >> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> > So your saying that a reply to a thread of locamotion being replaced
> > by Tesla's electric car technology is babble in an avionics forum!
>
> It certainly is off topic for the group, but since you insist...
>
> "Electric Cars: Not Ready for Prime Time"
>
> http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/922.pdf
>
> <snip delusional babble>
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

The North Atlantic Alliance(Illuminati,Opec,CIA, will kill Obama off
before he can introduce Free Energy as they did Thomas Henry Morey

[joeturn]

On Dec 19, 12:50*pm, wrote:
> joeturn > wrote:
> > On Dec 15, 11:43*pm, wrote:
> >> joeturn > wrote:
>
> >> Some babbling nonsense about Tesla in an aviation group.
>
> >> --
> >> Jim Pennino
>
> >> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> > So your saying that a reply to a thread of locamotion being replaced
> > by Tesla's electric car technology is babble in an avionics forum!
>
> It certainly is off topic for the group, but since you insist...
>
> "Electric Cars: Not Ready for Prime Time"
>
> http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/922.pdf
>
> <snip delusional babble>
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

The North Atlantic Alliance(Illuminati,Opec,CIA, will kill Obama off
before he can introduce Free Energy as they did Thomas Henry Moray

[[email protected]]

joeturn > wrote:
> On Dec 19, 12:50Â*pm, wrote:
>> joeturn > wrote:
>> > On Dec 15, 11:43Â*pm, wrote:
>> >> joeturn > wrote:
>>
>> >> Some babbling nonsense about Tesla in an aviation group.
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Jim Pennino
>>
>> >> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>>
>> > So your saying that a reply to a thread of locamotion being replaced
>> > by Tesla's electric car technology is babble in an avionics forum!
>>
>> It certainly is off topic for the group, but since you insist...
>>
>> "Electric Cars: Not Ready for Prime Time"
>>
>> http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/922.pdf
>>
>> <snip delusional babble>
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>>
>> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> The North Atlantic Alliance(Illuminati,Opec,CIA, will kill Obama off
> before he can introduce Free Energy as they did Thomas Henry Morey

Drooling kook babble.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

joeturn > wrote:
> On Dec 19, 12:50Â*pm, wrote:
>> joeturn > wrote:
>> > On Dec 15, 11:43Â*pm, wrote:
>> >> joeturn > wrote:
>>
>> >> Some babbling nonsense about Tesla in an aviation group.
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Jim Pennino
>>
>> >> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>>
>> > So your saying that a reply to a thread of locamotion being replaced
>> > by Tesla's electric car technology is babble in an avionics forum!
>>
>> It certainly is off topic for the group, but since you insist...
>>
>> "Electric Cars: Not Ready for Prime Time"
>>
>> http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/922.pdf
>>
>> <snip delusional babble>
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>>
>> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> The North Atlantic Alliance(Illuminati,Opec,CIA, will kill Obama off
> before he can introduce Free Energy as they did Thomas Henry Moray

Double posted drooling kook babble.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.