Immortalist
yahoo.com> wrote> Rod Speed
gmail.com> wrote>> Immortalist
yahoo.com> wrote>>> Rod Speed
gmail.com> wrote>>>> Immortalist
yahoo.com> wrote>>>>> Rod Speed
gmail.com> wrote>>>>>> Immortalist
yahoo.com> wrote>>>>>>> Rod Speed
gmail.com> wrote>>>>>>>> Immortalist
yahoo.com> wrote>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed
gmail.com> wrote>>>>>>>>>> Immortalist
yahoo.com> wrote>>>>>>>>>>> Why not just charge battereis with solar put in racks of 20
>>>>>>>>>>> warehouse charged universal racks electric cars of all kinds
>>>>>>>>>>> switch out the racks 200 miles racks available every 20 miles
>>>>>>>>>>> deposit on a rack 40 seconds to switch out the rack at a "station"
>>>>>>>>>> Not viable. Have you the remotest concept of how much solar
>>>>>>>>>> would be needed at each rack station, and how long it takes
>>>>>>>>>> to charge the rack again and how many cars would be
>>>>>>>>>> swapping the rack on even a single decent interstate ?
>>>>>>>>>> It wouldnt even be viable with nukes for the charging.
>>>>>>>>>> It would make more sense to use nukes to produce hydrogen and use that instead.
>>>>>>>>> Naw, you charge them up outside town, on a large
>>>>>>>>> scale, truck them in just like they do gas with tankers.
>>>>>>>> That wouldnt change a thing viability wise. In fact it would make it much worse.
>>>>>>> One tractor truck load would carry alot of full tanks.
>>>>>> Again, the problem aint with moving the batterys, the problem is
>>>>>> the amount of time it takes to recharge them and return them to
>>>>>> where you put them into cars. That approach of centralised
>>>>>> charging would just make that problem much worse and you would
>>>>>> need a lot more batterys in the process of being recharged.
>>>>> I wouldn't say that it would be centralized, or as centralized as oil refinement.
>>>> There's no point in doing other than recharging them where they
>>>> are swapped if you're going to use the grid to recharge them.
>>> This doesn't eliminate the possibility that gas/battery stations could be smaller,
>> They wouldnt even be that.
>>> to meet the demands of space in cities
>> There are no demands like that with car filling stations.
> Part of viability would be to be able to move in and appropriate prior infrastructure.
Yes, and gasoline refilling stations would be fine for recharging the batterys from the mains size wise.
>>> and allow swap stations to be in as many places as gas
>>> stations are now, if the racks were just trucked in and out.
>> You dont need to truck them in and out, just recharge them at the swap stations.
> Possible, if the underground area was appropriated and
> devoted to automatic battery pack moving machinary.
You wouldnt even need the underground area and so you could leave
the gasoline tanks there so that the two modes could coexist etc.
>>>> And it wouldnt work anyway, because it takes too long to recharge them.
>>> That position assumes that there is not enough area to produce the needed solar power.
>> Corse there isnt. Its a trivial calculation.
> Do you have any links to the calculation
You dont need that, I already told you how to do the calculation.
The word you need for the numbers is solar insolation.
> or do you know of a way to explain it in basic language?
I already did that too. Even with perfect capture of all the
solar falling on the swap site, there just isnt enough to charge
all those batterys with a swap station on an interstate.
>>> The company that is getting ready to attempt to power Albuquerque New
>>> Mexico, with 4 square miles of mirrors, claims that it would take a couple
>>> hundred spuare miles in the desert west to power the entire country.
>> Pity thats a lie and it wouldnt work with rechargable batterys for cars anyway.
> You might have me on that one
I do indeed.
> since I heard and interview with the company making the mirrors and establishing
> their tried and tested standards with solar powered steam engine generators and
> thermos storage of superheated water technologies.
>>>>> Again, we are not both defining "scale of production and distribution"
>>>>> nor "supply and demand" on large scales, the same way.
>>>> I'm not 'defining' anything, just rubbing your nose in the fact
>>>> that your unviable approach would be even less viable if the
>>>> batterys arent recharged where they are swapped.
>>> I apologise if I made it sound like they could only be trucked in and out.
>> I didnt say you did.
> Then were you saying that trucking them in and out alone would not be viable,
Yes, because it would increase the time needed to recharge the
batterys from an already unviable time to an even more unviable time.
And that if you charge them from the mains, you dont need to truck them around anymore.
> by raising the point as supportive evidence for you position?
It isnt my position, I am letting the air out of your silly scheme that just plain wont work.
>>> I believe they could be charged where they are swapped in some types of service stations.
>> They could be charged in all of those if you're charging them from the grid.
> I suppose it might be possible have a days worth of battery packs in one station,
Nope, not with a station on the interstate.
> but some gas stations may be to small, even after
> appropriating the underground storage area for gas.
Wrong with the smaller ones that arent on the interstate.
>>> But in others they would be trucked in and out.
>> Nope.
> Why not?
I already told you why not. It increase the time needed to recharge the
batterys from an already unviable time to and even more unviable time.
And you have a problem with what the truck is powered with
in spades with all those batterys being carted around daily.
The only thing that makes any sense at all is to charge the batterys
from the mains at the swap stations and forget about using solar.
And that STILL wouldnt be viable.
>>> Maybe you should define "viable" so we can have a criterion to work with.
>> The definition is that it works. Your scheme wouldnt.
> Well I will try and find a definition we can use,
Thats the definition, stupid.
> if you disagree feel free to pick another from the page.
I already told you what the definition is.
> ...an action or proposed action which has a feasible, realistic outcome...
What I said I different words.
> If by "works" you mean "feasible, realistic outcome"
> which part of my "scheme" is not "feasible and realistic"?
I already told you that, repeatedly.
> Remember you use of "feasible" and "realistic" must be applicable to other
> uses and not stipulated with special conditions solely for this argument.
Presumably you actually are that stupid.
>>>>> I am talking about on a competitive level with existing energy production methods.
>>>> You're talking about an approach that just plain wont work, because it takes
>>>> too long to recharge the batterys. In spades if you plan to do that using solar.
>>> Doesn't it take a couple of hours to charge 20 or
>>> 40 batteries with the right amperage and current?
>> Wrong with batterys that are the entire power source of the car.
> Ya, isn't that about 20 yellow tops like they use in golf carts? I
> think they use 6 of them, I use two myself for extra power in my
> vehicle. Most auto stores can cook one of these to 98%% in one hour,
Not from fully discharged they cant.
> though it will get hot. These are used in wheelchairs also.
>>> At many auto stores they can completely charge
>>> one battery in about an hour, but it gets hot.
>> Wrong again. They certainly cant do that with the batterys in electric vehicles.
> They would need 20 dedicated cookers for one hours to charge a pack.
Wrong again.
> But I don't know much more about the charging abilities.
You clearly dont know anything about it. And they arent 'cookers' they are chargers.
> I suppose places that make these batteries have massive simualtanious charging abilities.
Nope, they dont need to charge them.
>>> When you say "[plain] won't work" it sounds like you
>>> have some pretty solid evidence to back that up with.
>> Yep, have a look at the charge times of electric vehicles some time.
> Well there are probably regulations that won't allow home
> owners to run chargers that can cook the battery up.
Wrong again.
> Probably the auto shops need a certification or liscense to use them.
Nope.
>>> Its like your saying certainly without a doubt it won't work now or ever.
>> Thats what I am saying with an interstate full
>> of cars swapping the batterys every 200 miles.
> Does it just seem unrealistic
Nope, it *IS* unrealistic.
> or are you imaginng a complete replacement of the gas/fuel scheme as it exists?
Its your scheme, not mine.
> There is alot of gas out there along the roads, so obviously
> there would have to be alot of anything that eventually replaces it.
Yep, but the problem aint with the number of swap stations,
the problem is how long it takes to recharge the batterys.
> Remember, before the automobile, horse and buggy days, the idea of having gas
> wherever people normally then rode their bio-vehicle [horses] would seem absurd.
Irrelevant to now. Its certainly possible to turn the existing gasoline stations
into battery swap stations. But still wont be viable because you cant charge
the batterys fast enough to be viable with a swap station on the interstates.
>>> I am curious about that, considering you strong and emotional looking language.
>> Its not strong or emotional looking, its just the fact.
> Is the fact based upon current technology and infrastructure alone,
Nope.
> or I mean how would these "facts" be used against possibilities in the near and far future?
Yep.
> Are you asserting something about how long this situation will persist?
Yep, we havent invented a way to charge the batterys fast enough.
Until that happens your scheme isnt viable.
> Is it the number of batteries required or the distribution and
> charging that will never allow the schene to become real?
Just the charging.
>>>>> I suppose you are all hung up on the unstated
>>>>> assumptions about how we get from here to there?
>>>> Nope, just rubbing your nose in the fact that your unviable approach would
>>>> be even less viable if the batterys arent recharged where they are swapped.
>>> Now you are swtitching from "not viable at all" to "less viable"
>> Nope. I'm saying that charging from the mains isnt viable, and that
>> centralised charging stations are even less viable, essentially because
>> that just adds to the time it takes to recharge the battery with the
>> transport time to the central charging station and back.
> Here is where I suppose I would wander off from the oil refining
> and electric generation metaphor and move it over to farming.
It aint a metaphor, its how long it takes to charge a battery.
> Many areas would farm the solar heat and then distribute it.
Yes, but that aint charging batterys.
> But I admit I am making this up as I go along.
It is a viable approach and is essentially what the Brazillians do with their
ethanol production, farm sugar cane, turn the into alcohol and use that as
a fuel in their cars. Perfectly viable and they are doing it right now.
> But as to your point of "just adds time", I think that any one of the schemes could be made to work
You're just plain wrong.
> but some would be more expensive.
That isnt the problem.
> I suppose a bunch of styles would be experimented with and competition
> would settle the issue as to what is most efficient for us then.
Not when none of them can charge the batterys fast enough
to be viable with a battery swap station on an interstate.
>> And that solar charging is even less viable again, because the sun doesnt
>> shine long enough strong enough so that adds to the charging time even more.
>>> I can accept that language for logic sake.
>> Nothing to accept.
> This is where storing heated water in giant themoses wold be more viable.
Nope, because even with a perfect system, central charging stations
add too much time to the already unviable battery charge time.
> Maybe even solar panels for the day and heated water during
> the day used to run steam engines spinning generators at night.
Pointless when even charging the batterys from the mains isnt viable.
> Why not just bypass solar panels and batteries and just boil water with mirrors?
Pointless because even charging the batterys from the mains isnt viable.
There's no point wanking about doing it with solar when it wont even work on the mains.
>>> Upon reading my statement of "all hung up" I am sorry, I should have
>>> said "dogmatic about how the issue of how to get from here to there.
>> Still just plain wrong. Nothing dogmatic about the facts.
> Well I mean that it just sounded dogmatic since
> your contention didn't seem to offer any evidence,
Thats still not dogmatic, its just a lack of the evidence you want.
> or as the paste below claime [no attempt at reflective justification];
>>>>> That of course is an important issue, but is somewhat off topic,
>>>>> as I have addressed the topic.
>>>> Nope, you've just waffled on about what isnt
>>>> the problem, how the batterys are swapped.
>>>>>>>>> Currently the gas is stored underground. But stations would
>>>>>>>>> probably turn into warehouses. When you pull up the standard
>>>>>>>>> arm comes out, pulls out the tired pack and slaps another in,
>>>>>>>>> in seconds. Faster than putting any liquid in.
>>>>>>>> The problem aint with swapping the battery, its with charging it so its usable again.
>>>>>>> Are you saying that if this took off on a large scale that there
>>>>>>> wouldn't be enough light to charge more batteries than each
>>>>>>> station could use?
>>>>>> No, that it takes too long to recharge them, compared with the
>>>>>> rate at which they are being discharged with all those cars
>>>>>> heading down the interstate.
>>>>> Then your saying that it would be impossible to charge two, three, or even
>>>>> four times as many batteries as all cars could possibly use in a day?
>>>> Using solar, yep.
>>> When you claim that "it would be impossible to charge two, three, or
>>> even four times as many batteries as all cars could possibly use in
>>> a day" do you mean now or ever?
>> Ever with solar. Essentially because there isnt ever going
>> to be enough solar falling on the site that you use to do the
>> charging, even if you assume an ideal collection of everything
>> that falls on that site, and the technology will never get that good.
>>> Also to make such a strong claim
>> Again, it isnt a strong claim, its just basic physics.
> Can you provide any information to back that up?
I already told you how to find that information for yourself. Use the words
> And how would it apply to mirrors, steam engines, generators and thermoses?
Doesnt change a thing. They are still limited by the
amount of solar energy falling on the battery swap site.
And when recharging from the mains isnt viable, there's no point in mindlessly wanking about solar.
>>> it seems that you would be ready to provide at least an outline of how
>>> much energy is available and how much per space we might get from it.
>>> Can you do that?
>> Its completely routine for anyone to check what solar falls on a particular location.
> Have you gone through the routine in your area
Yep, and I know how it varys around the world too.
> or are you quoting authorities which have?
Its just a routine calculation, it doesnt even need to be
measured except when you are working out how much
less than the theoretical potential is available due to cloud etc.
It wont work even with perfect cloudless days every day.
> If the later do you have any links to their data?
Use the words and look it up for yourself.
> The later is a good method of arguing as long as you can point to sources.
Dont need sources, all we need is the calculation and
even you should be able to look that up for yourself.
>>>>> It appears that you are just saying, no, but providing no evidence to support the logic,
>>>> Wrong again. Have you even the remotest concept of how much
>>>> area of solar cells would be required to recharge that many
>>>> batterys every day, including the days when there isnt enough sun ?
>>> Actually my original position was based upon mirors not solar cells.
>> Makes no difference, there isnt enough solar arriving at the entire charging site.
> This assumes alot about what mirrors can do, specifically magnify.
Nope, they cant magnify the solar energy falling on the site.
ALL they can ever do is concentrate the solar that falls on the mirror.
>>> This company in New Mexico has determined that they would
>>> only need 4 square miles of mirrors, steam engines and
>>> generators, to power Albuquerque New Mexico 24 hours a day.
>> Pity that most of the US doesnt have anything like that much solar.
> The youtube video showed one mirror heating enough water to run a small steam engine.
Pity that it doesnt collect enough solar energy to charge that many batterys.
>>> But as for the possibility of charging 3 or 4 times as
>>> many batteries as people could use, would the limitation
>>> be upon how much space is present or how much is usable.
>> Neither. The problem is that the batterys are
>> discharged faster than you can charge them.
> But in the auto battery rack swap scheme no one owns any batteries.
Irrelevant.
> There would probably be a deposit and then a
> fee for the electricity in each pack switched out.
Irrelevant.
> I suppose in the gasoline world it would be like instead
> of filling up, an arm would come out and swap gas tanks.
Again, missing the point utterly.
> Making this up as I go along just concentrating
> on the logic and consistency of the arguments.
And missing the point utterly.
The problem is with the charging of the batterys, not with the swapping of them.
As I have told you repeatedly.
In one ear and straight out the other.
>>> And the idea that things can be trucked
>>> around the country in very large scales is not odd.
>> Its just not practical with batterys that only last for 200 miles.
> A company or chain of companies might think it would be profitable.
It cant possibly be profitable when its not viable.
>>> The idea wouldn't seem strange to Walmart considering
>>> the tonage they move around the country daily.
>> None of their customers use up anything like that volume so quickly.
>> The liquid fuel industry doesnt either.
> Why would that stop them from making a buck if it was "viable"?
It *ISNT* viable, as I have explained repeatedly.
>>>>> which of course would be begging the question itself.
>>>> Nope. Thats not what that phrase means.
>>> Begging the question is a fallacy where the arguer states one or more
>>> premises and then merely repeats one of the premises as a conclusion.
>> No one is doing that.
> You may not be doing that but your argument style gives the appearance
> of merely repeating your premise and claiming it is conclusive.
Then you need to get your eyes tested, BAD.
> Maybe your premise is your conclusion
Nope.
> which is OK as long as it has some justifiability or premises to back it up.
Done that repeatedly. It just goes in one ear and straight out the other with you.
>>> Premises are supposed to support and give warrent to a conclusion.
>>> When you correctly claim that "it takes too long to recharge them,
>>> compared with the rate at which they are being discharged with all
>>> those cars heading down the interstate" you are simply assuming that
>>> the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises
>> Nope, I'm rubbing your nose in the fact that that is true.
> What do you mean by "rubbing your nose in the fact"?
You cant be THAT stupid.
> Do you mean pointing out a fact with emphasis?
Nope, I mean rubbing your nose in the fact.
> Besides you need to back up this argument that
> concludes with the "facts" you have not done that yet.
You're lying now.
Just more completely irrelevant mindless silly shit.
>>> and this does not constitute evidence for that conclusion;
>> Never said it was the evidence, it is the fact tho.
>>> the implied conclusion that since the unequal times of use and charge, then there
>>> will not be enough space to charge all these batteries on a massive scale.
>> I never ever said anything like that either.
>>>>> Maybe you are implying that the cost would be disproportionate
>>>>> to existing energy production an distribution methods?
>>>> Nope, that its just not feasible to charge that many batterys using solar.
>>> When you say not feasable do you have at least a ball park figure to
>>> shine some light on how absurd my proposition looks in light of your
>>> contention about my proposal?
>> Just look at the amount of solar that falls on the swap site
>> and assume a perfect collection of all of that solar. There
>> just isnt enough of it with a swap station on an interstate.
>> And even if there was, even doing the charging using the grid wont fly either.
> I would think that the battery industry would "farm" its own electricity.
Doesnt matter what you claim to 'think', it just isnt viable to do that.
> But why couldn't the grid be increased to handle it?
The problem aint with the size of the grid, THE PROBLEM IS WITH HOW
LONG IT TAKES TO RECHARGE THE BATTERYS FROM THE GRID.
>>>> Just more mindless silly shit.
>>> The Appeal to Ridicule
>> It isnt even that.
>>> is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument."
>> Its mindless silly shit anyway.
>>> If we consider your argument it would be like saying that grammar is silly,
>> Nope, nothing like.
>>> but you would have to continue using it else your words would be nonsense.
>>> Afraid your trapped with logic since all arguments you propose necessarily
>>> are constructed logically.
>> Wrong again.
> My contention was that whenever we make any areguments in predicate
> logic, we use logic and grammar, else these aruments would be
> illogical & ungrammatical. Any time a fallacy is apparent there is
> usually something wrong with the argument style, this, even if the
> argument is true, it falsifies itself as illogical.
