If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Electric Car Conversion Companies: Alternatives To Gas Powered Cars
"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in message news On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:14:40 GMT, Charles Vincent wrote: Morgans wrote: "Roger (K8RI)" wrote Clutch lever? I said that Harley was "Old":-)) Not one of those modern ones. OK, I give up. So old that it didn't have a transmission? g How did you work the clutch? I'm not familiar with "old as dirt" Harleys. Foot operated clutch and a tank shifter. I never had a tank shifter, Yup, Rocker clutch and tank shift 3-speed, with both on the left side. Not exactly a bike for letting it all hang out while shifting through the turns:-)) Hand clutch and foot shift was one whale of an improvement for both convenience and safety. but did ride a panhead with a jockey shift (hand shift behind the seat). That I've not seen. That sounds familuar but I can't recall for sure either. There was also something like the Cushman or Mustang, that we use to full throttle with the right twist grip. But after you got in to top gear, you could reach under the tank with your free left hand and override the governer on the big end. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Electric Car Conversion Companies: Alternatives To Gas Powered Cars
Maxwell wrote:
...ride the governer on the big end. That's what countless Arkansan females said about Bill wasn't it? |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Electric Car Conversion Companies: Alternatives To Gas Powered Cars
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message ... Maxwell wrote: ...ride the governer on the big end. That's what countless Arkansan females said about Bill wasn't it? Yeah, and little did they realize at the time, the capacity of their mouths was (1) US leader. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Electric Car Conversion Companies: Alternatives To Gas Powered Cars
"BobR" wrote in message ... I have long believed that nuclear could provide long term solutions to power needs but only if we quit all the bull**** political infighting and find real solutions. We agree! The first step in that direction is to admit that you really do have problems that must be solved. What basic problems are there? We have been operating commercial power reactors in the US for what? 50 years? What unsolved (scientific & engineering) problems do you see? In half a century, I can't point to a case where any member of the public has died (or even been injured) as a result of nuclear energy. You can't say the same about fossil power. We have had our heads up our ass for years and failed to admit the problems with fossil fuels, lets NOT repeat the same mistake in finding replacements. I can't argue with that. Vaughn |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Electric Car Conversion Companies: Alternatives To Gas PoweredCars
On Nov 29, 5:26 pm, "Vaughn Simon"
wrote: "BobR" wrote in message ... I have long believed that nuclear could provide long term solutions to power needs but only if we quit all the bull**** political infighting and find real solutions. We agree! The first step in that direction is to admit that you really do have problems that must be solved. What basic problems are there? We have been operating commercial power reactors in the US for what? 50 years? What unsolved (scientific & engineering) problems do you see? In half a century, I can't point to a case where any member of the public has died (or even been injured) as a result of nuclear energy. You can't say the same about fossil power. We have had our heads up our ass for years and failed to admit the problems with fossil fuels, lets NOT repeat the same mistake in finding replacements. I can't argue with that. Vaughn As I mentioned earlier, the main problem I see in the nuclear industry at this point in time and I am talking about more than just nuclear energy is the issue of dealing with the waste materials. It is not just a problem for the power plants but all other uses as well. With the power generation plants, it is how to dispose of (or recycle) the spent fuel and all other contaminated byproducts. The spent fuel could, as someone pointed out, possibly be recycled for other uses if some way can be found to do so safely which is the current delima. The bigger issue though might be the other contaminated byproducts including the cooling liquids, and the facilities themselves as they reach their useful life and are decommisioned. All of the contaminates must ultimately be disposed of in a manner that does not contaminate the environment or pose health hazards to anyone who might come in contact with them. I know, the same issues are there with fossil fuels but that does not excuse us from proactive decisions on nuclear issues. Most of the contaminates from fossil fuel generation can be scrubbed from the environment within a few years to few decades by natural processes. Thas assumes that we don't continue to add to the polutants. Not so for nuclear waste. The contaminates from nuclear waste and / or nuclear accidents will take nature thousands of years to scrub. The potiential effects are far worse. All that being said, I would much rather live next door to a nuclear plant than a coal plant. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear powrer - where are all the two headed kids? (Warning rant)
This irrational fear of anything nuclear is getting to me.
I grew up in Alamogordo, NM 60 miles from the first atomic bomb test at Trinity. The radiation was supposed to kill everybody and/or mothers were supposed to birth two headed babies. I still have a little vial of radioactive green glass created when the intense heat of the Trinity test melted desert sand. I picked it up at ground zero in 1952. Nothing happened to anyone except the area today is noted for healthy people and its population of centenarians. The era of atmospheric nuclear weapons testing saw more than 3000 explosions some as large as 50 megatons. That's way more nuclear explosions than was expected in a hypothetical WWIII. It's as if the USSR and the US agreed to bomb themselves instead of each other. We all carry radioactive caesium 60, strontium 90 and a little plutonium in our bodies as a result. Where are the mutated monsters or the piles of corpses? Why has the cancer death rate actually decreased since the mid 1940's? Where was 'nuclear winter'? Radiation is a natural part of the environment. Granite rock is radioactive. So is a cathode ray tube (CRT) that we all spent a lifetime in front of. I live a mile above sea level in Colorado where cosmic radiation is intense. Colorado is the healthiest state. We all, especialy we pilots, spend out entire lives bathed in radioactivity but where are the cases of radiation poisoning? The Chernobyl reactor disaster is the worst possible scenario for a civil power reactor. It was supposed to have killed 250,000 in Europe. Nobody can find them. Death rates haven't changed. The best guess now is that less than 30 were killed and those were workers at the plant or rescuers without protective gear. I thought it was hilarious when DHS stopped a freighter from Central America because it set off their radiation detectors - it was full of banana's. Banana trees concentrate naturally occurring radioactive potassium in the fruit. Anybody plan to quit eating bananas? Like almost anything, if you get too much of it, it will hurt you. Current safety measures are quite enough - in fact they are probably mega-overkill. What IS an ongoing disaster is the burning of coal and oil because we are afraid of nuclear power. Since the nuclear age began millions have verifiably been killed by the production, transport and burnig of fossil fuels. We may also have ruined our planet. Bill Daniels |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Electric Car Conversion Companies: Alternatives To Gas Powered Cars
"BobR" wrote in message ... As I mentioned earlier, the main problem I see in the nuclear industry at this point in time and I am talking about more than just nuclear energy is the issue of dealing with the waste materials. And I pointed out that those "problems" have been solved for decades (except for the politics) and furthermore, fossil plants have horrendous unsolved waste problems. Problems that sicken people, kill people, and even threaton the future viability of our planet. Why is this so hard to see? It is not just a problem for the power plants but all other uses as well. With the power generation plants, it is how to dispose of (or recycle) the spent fuel and all other contaminated byproducts. Fuel recycling is a solved problem. We don't recycle fuel because the process makes potentially bomb-grade fisionable material which must be safeguarded to ensure that is is used for fuel modules, not blowing things up. Of course, we spend (or at least have spent) billions to operate special reactors for the express purpose of making bomb-grade material while we argue about how to store our used (recycleable) fuel modules. The spent fuel could, as someone pointed out, possibly be recycled for other uses if some way can be found to do so safely which is the current delima. The bigger issue though might be the other contaminated byproducts including the cooling liquids, and the facilities themselves as they reach their useful life and are decommisioned. We have been decommissioning plants for decades, we know how to do it. The Navy has decommissioned hundreds of nuclear reactors, including my old submarine. I know, the same issues are there with fossil fuels but that does not excuse us from proactive decisions on nuclear issues. Again, the storage "problem" is long solved, except for the politics. ****, even the Egyptians knew how to build buildings that could last thousands of years, and they did it thousands of years ago. What makes you think that we can't do it today? Most of the contaminates from fossil fuel generation can be scrubbed from the environment within a few years to few decades by natural processes. Proof? Thas assumes that we don't continue to add to the polutants. And the chances of that are? Let's deal with reality here please, and seriously consider what we are doing to our environment. Not so for nuclear waste. The contaminates from nuclear waste and / or nuclear accidents will take nature thousands of years to scrub. We don't have to "scrub" nuclear waste from the environment" because, unlike with fossil plants, the deadly waste is not allowed to enter the environment. The potiential effects are far worse. Agreed, at least in the near term. Unfortunately, we are not sure yet what the environmental results of thousands of fossil plants to our planet, but we are running the grand experiment today! That said, nuclear plants need to be designed & operated under very strict supervision. Operating them is serious business. All that being said, I would much rather live next door to a nuclear plant than a coal plant. Agreed again. I have literally lived in the same vehicle with a nuclear power plant for months at a time. Unlike the anti-nukes, I have taken the trouble to learn about nuclear power. (OK, actually I am an ex-Navy nuclear reactor operator.) I have personally met the dragon and it is not as fearsome a creature as some folks would lead you to believe. I just can't believe the damage we are doing to the environment and to ourselves by continuing to eshue nuclear energy in favor fossil power. Can we get back to airplanes now? Vaughn |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Electric Car Conversion Companies: Alternatives To Gas PoweredCars
On Nov 29, 8:30 pm, "Vaughn Simon"
wrote: "BobR" wrote in message ... As I mentioned earlier, the main problem I see in the nuclear industry at this point in time and I am talking about more than just nuclear energy is the issue of dealing with the waste materials. And I pointed out that those "problems" have been solved for decades (except for the politics) and furthermore, fossil plants have horrendous unsolved waste problems. Problems that sicken people, kill people, and even threaton the future viability of our planet. Why is this so hard to see? It is not just a problem for the power plants but all other uses as well. With the power generation plants, it is how to dispose of (or recycle) the spent fuel and all other contaminated byproducts. Fuel recycling is a solved problem. We don't recycle fuel because the process makes potentially bomb-grade fisionable material which must be safeguarded to ensure that is is used for fuel modules, not blowing things up. Of course, we spend (or at least have spent) billions to operate special reactors for the express purpose of making bomb-grade material while we argue about how to store our used (recycleable) fuel modules. The spent fuel could, as someone pointed out, possibly be recycled for other uses if some way can be found to do so safely which is the current delima. The bigger issue though might be the other contaminated byproducts including the cooling liquids, and the facilities themselves as they reach their useful life and are decommisioned. We have been decommissioning plants for decades, we know how to do it. The Navy has decommissioned hundreds of nuclear reactors, including my old submarine. I know, the same issues are there with fossil fuels but that does not excuse us from proactive decisions on nuclear issues. Again, the storage "problem" is long solved, except for the politics. ****, even the Egyptians knew how to build buildings that could last thousands of years, and they did it thousands of years ago. What makes you think that we can't do it today? Most of the contaminates from fossil fuel generation can be scrubbed from the environment within a few years to few decades by natural processes. Proof? Thas assumes that we don't continue to add to the polutants. And the chances of that are? Let's deal with reality here please, and seriously consider what we are doing to our environment. Not so for nuclear waste. The contaminates from nuclear waste and / or nuclear accidents will take nature thousands of years to scrub. We don't have to "scrub" nuclear waste from the environment" because, unlike with fossil plants, the deadly waste is not allowed to enter the environment. The potiential effects are far worse. Agreed, at least in the near term. Unfortunately, we are not sure yet what the environmental results of thousands of fossil plants to our planet, but we are running the grand experiment today! That said, nuclear plants need to be designed & operated under very strict supervision. Operating them is serious business. All that being said, I would much rather live next door to a nuclear plant than a coal plant. Agreed again. I have literally lived in the same vehicle with a nuclear power plant for months at a time. Unlike the anti-nukes, I have taken the trouble to learn about nuclear power. (OK, actually I am an ex-Navy nuclear reactor operator.) I have personally met the dragon and it is not as fearsome a creature as some folks would lead you to believe. I just can't believe the damage we are doing to the environment and to ourselves by continuing to eshue nuclear energy in favor fossil power. Can we get back to airplanes now? Vaughn Sure we can get back to planes...do you have a nuclear powered plane? BG The point that you seem to miss is that an issue is not solved until all issues are resolved including the most important one which is the political will to solve them. We have the technology to solve the vast majority of our current polution issues with fossil fuels but we refuse to invest the monies to implement them. The same holds true for the nuclear industry. The difference is that the general public isn't going to and should accept that same attitude toward nuclear. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Nuclear powrer - where are all the two headed kids? (Warning rant)
"Bill Daniels" bildan@comcast-dot-net wrote in message . .. This irrational fear of anything nuclear is getting to me. I grew up in Alamogordo, NM 60 miles from the first atomic bomb test at Trinity. The radiation was supposed to kill everybody and/or mothers were supposed to birth two headed babies. I still have a little vial of radioactive green glass created when the intense heat of the Trinity test melted desert sand. I picked it up at ground zero in 1952. Nothing happened to anyone except the area today is noted for healthy people and its population of centenarians. The era of atmospheric nuclear weapons testing saw more than 3000 explosions some as large as 50 megatons. That's way more nuclear explosions than was expected in a hypothetical WWIII. It's as if the USSR and the US agreed to bomb themselves instead of each other. We all carry radioactive caesium 60, strontium 90 and a little plutonium in our bodies as a result. Where are the mutated monsters or the piles of corpses? Why has the cancer death rate actually decreased since the mid 1940's? Where was 'nuclear winter'? Radiation is a natural part of the environment. Granite rock is radioactive. So is a cathode ray tube (CRT) that we all spent a lifetime in front of. I live a mile above sea level in Colorado where cosmic radiation is intense. Colorado is the healthiest state. We all, especialy we pilots, spend out entire lives bathed in radioactivity but where are the cases of radiation poisoning? The Chernobyl reactor disaster is the worst possible scenario for a civil power reactor. It was supposed to have killed 250,000 in Europe. Nobody can find them. Death rates haven't changed. The best guess now is that less than 30 were killed and those were workers at the plant or rescuers without protective gear. I thought it was hilarious when DHS stopped a freighter from Central America because it set off their radiation detectors - it was full of banana's. Banana trees concentrate naturally occurring radioactive potassium in the fruit. Anybody plan to quit eating bananas? Like almost anything, if you get too much of it, it will hurt you. Current safety measures are quite enough - in fact they are probably mega-overkill. What IS an ongoing disaster is the burning of coal and oil because we are afraid of nuclear power. Since the nuclear age began millions have verifiably been killed by the production, transport and burnig of fossil fuels. We may also have ruined our planet. Bill Daniels My sentiments exactly. Al G |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I know there are electric powered sailplanes but | YouHelpBuild.com | Soaring | 12 | November 19th 07 01:57 PM |
Solar Electric Powered Aircraft | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 33 | November 6th 05 08:37 PM |
Solar Electric Powered Aircraft | Larry Dighera | Soaring | 31 | November 6th 05 08:37 PM |
Is a Turn Coordinator an electric motor or powered by fan? | kickinwing | Piloting | 5 | June 11th 05 12:25 PM |