victorian/edwardian houses or new houses?

Page 6 of 14  


read.
Last time you had a different reason for not reading it. Here it is:
"This web site appears out off date. No press release for two years, indicating no progress."
Franz
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
IMM wrote:

How can a plain white PDF file do your eyes in?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Well he has been talking about "the laying on of hands" and Wankel engines in the last few days.........
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

read.
LOL. Boiled beef and carrots, boiled beef and carrots....
--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

read.
I have acrobat 6 and it has checkers on the background.
--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

who
This is balls. Look at the power and the fuel consumption and compare. The Mazda is at least as good in fuel consumption.
--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Since you love to quote figures, here's some for you. The Mazda RX-8 is a four door coupe, so I'll compare it to the BMW 'standard' 3 Series 4 door saloon - a larger heavier car in every way. Lets take the 323i as being the closest in performance.
Top speed 0-60 0-100 30-70 Test MPG Touring route MPG RX-8 142 7.1 18.1 6.8 12 27 323i 141 7.6 19.8 7.1 23 31
So drive a sports car like the RX-8 in a spirited fashion and it does about half the MPG of a heavier saloon car with an engine near twice its nominal capacity, but broadly similar performance. Drive it gently over a mixed town and suburban main road route where its light weight should really benefit, and it still does badly.
--
*Never slap a man who's chewing tobacco *

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@argonet.co.uk London SW 12
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No.
Not tough enough, the Internal combustion engine is only around 30% efficient, and the emissions are highly polluting because of the small explosions it creates (not continuous burn).

They are still highly inefficient and pollute heavily.

They are twiddling around the edges of a flawed highly inefficient design.

Pollution is still high and efficiency woefully low.

Not in a million years. CH output is very low. Natural gas is the main CH fuel, and this is the cleanest fuel by a mile.

Emission equipment still is just twiddling around the edges. See above.

A natural gas boiler can go for many, many years and still be quite clean burning. Modern boilers are super efficient, and emissions super clean too. The efficient of gas boilers rose by about 30% in a few years. Lets see if GM can do that with a sill piston engine.

MIT realsed a paper that fuel cells research has not come up with the goods and diesel and gasoline engines will have top fill the bill in the short to medium term. The US government gave billions to auto makers to squander. They don't want change. They should not be given research money at all. The technology should researched by other organisations and legislation to make them adopt the technology.

Still twiddling around the edges. No major breakthroughs yet, despite some nice, more efficient, and running, concept engines around.
http://conceptengine.tripod.com / http://www.deadbeatdad.org/eliptoid /
The Russians have come up a Rotary engine that is the reverse of the wankel, Instead of a an elliptical chamber and triangular rotor, it is the reverse. the seals are in the engine block, and can be readily changed. Good for Heat and power applications. The Russians make two normal Wankel engines for aircraft and helicopters.
The Australians have come up with a good improvement on the piston engine, not using a crank shaft and or swivelling con-rods. No real figures as yet, but production imminent. An auto engine is currently being tested in a Proton car donated by Proton. http://www.revetec.com/website /

No. the engine is highly polluting until fully hot which takes many miles.
--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I suggest that you take the effort to find out the facts behind the government and motor lobby propaganda. That is completely untrue. Here are a few of the major reasons, but I shall not follow up much. If you want to know the science behind what I am saying, I will answer if I can, but I will not play Blair and Howard.
1) An increasing number of cars are fitted with power steering and brakes, and (worse) air conditioning. In addition to increasing the fuel consumption, it means that engines need to be left running when the car is stopped in traffic. Not all are as bad as Citroen, but it is now rare for engines to be switched off in traffic jams.
2) Catalytic converters virtually eliminate carbon monoxide, but increase the amount of nitrogen oxides. Worse, they work only after the engine has warmed up (about 5 miles) and the average trip in the UK is about 3 miles. Also, they don't work at all well when the engine is idling (see (1). The reason that they "reduce pollution" is the the government is very careful to measure only what they do reduce.
I will give you that an INCIDENTAL effect has been the removal of lead and sulphur but, as someone with breathing problems, I can witness that pollution for a given amount of traffic is getting worse.
3) The various regulations have the effect of increasing the weight of vehicles, discouraging more economical two-wheeled transport (both motorcycles and bicycles, ridden on the road). I believe that it would now be cheaper for me to get a HGV licence than a motorcycle one, and I am a very "low risk" person. And cycling is now finished, as a form of medium-distance commuting (3-10 miles), and that is DIRECTLY due to the changes in regulations and attitudes of the "powers that be."
Other people have pointed out the errors in your "pollution-free" car theory. All it does is move the pollution from the suburbs to the power station, though I agree that doing so COULD be used to reduce pollution. I know of no plans that any government has, and definitely not the UK, to do so.
Regards, Nick Maclaren.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nick Maclaren wrote:

No issue there. But people never used to switch off engines in jams anyway. And you don't need steering when the car is staitonary..

I don't think you are correct on that. The NO stuff anyway. The biggest benefirt is that they do (once hot) redice hydrocarbon emmissions that are teh bigger causes of smog. Not disagreeing with your main point tho.

I agree on that. But I have noticed something different. I can drive the M25 on a sunday, and not be badly affected. But on a weekday.....its hell.
The difference? No diesels. Diesels produce emormous quantities of very nasty pollution and are not subject to legislation.

I don't actually agree there either. Tother half's Fiat Punto is more economical, with its power steering, and lighter, than - say - a morris minor of 50 years ago, or indeed a Mini of 30 years ago. And faster an better braked than any of my 60's sports cars - MG midgets etc.
I agree on cycling. Too many cars for it to be safe.

I thimk a two pronged attack is called for - to reduce overall need to drive, which I frmly believe will actually come about naturally as more an more people use the net to do what a car used to. It worts for me.
And a radical switch to electric cars. No polluton at teh point of drive, but, as you pioint out, shifting the pollution back to the power gerenating stations. Where IMHO it is MUCH better addressed.
Cars acn omly run on a limited rtange of fules, at limited efficiency due to the weight of making the realy efficient engnes, Power staons can run on almost anythig and the weight is not an issue. They don't suffer from idling, intermittent use, and so on. In short everything about electric cars is ideal for car use. They only use energy when moving, they produce no noise or effluents, (or much less) and it is even possible to use regenerative braking to charge th ebatteros when slowing them down, although the economics of that are yet to be proven.
Performance with lithium polymer cells is more than adequate - in fact it is stupendous. Distribution of energy exists in the national grid. Overnight charging would actually improve power staion efficiency as it happens when other electrical uses are low, so power stations run continuosly - much better for efficiency. The only unknown to me is the energy cost and lifetime of battery production and recycling. But I doubt it is worse than making e.g aluminium for car engines, or steel for transmissions.
The cars are simpler too - all wheel drive with motors integarted into the hubs, no need for gearboxes by and large, or transmissions. In short its a simpler beast. One enormous battery pack, 4 motors and a bit of power electronics. That replaces engine, cooling system, transmiision, axles - in short most of the heavy bulky bits. No maintenance, apart from replacing defective cells and so on. No oil changes, or plug changes. Performance with most of te weight slung low under the cahssis, and a motor on every wheel, with de facto traction control - its a rally drivers dream come true. No gears to go, no clutch to go. And easy access to better than 800bhp if you need it, or the ability to trickle along at 90% efficiency at much lower power levels. 00 miles + range on an overnight charge.
If YOU could get one of these at 20 grand that cost 1/4 of the cost of a petrol car to run, would you not buy one? (on cheap rate electricity I reckon about 15 quid to 'fill the tank' for 300 mile range). I wold, like a bloody shot!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I remember when they did. If nothing else, they would overheat if you didn't. And, in the case of cars like the Citroen, I am afraid that you DO need the engine when stationary and not parked.

I didn't say NO, but nitrogen oxides. Some are produced in the engine, and they may be changed in valency but will not be destroyed, and some will be added in the converter. You get slightly more, but a different set - and lean-burn engines produce more, too, unless great effort is taken to reduce that effect.

Yes, they are, but it is much weaker. The fines are risible for a transport company. Blame Whitehall, again :-(

That's not the reason, because the drop has occurred as much in areas where there has been no increase in the number of cars. Saturation is saturation.
Regards, Nick Maclaren.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

How about heating the car in winter? This would be a traditional electric element, which consumes a lot of power from batteries. The car would probably need a layer of insulation to keep heat in and heat out in summer. Do the batteries produce enough heat to heat the cars cabin?
--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Last I heard, it sounded as if 'they' were going to add a small petrol burner to provide heating. Apparently this was the most efficient/sensible option, at least in the early days of such vehicles.
Perhaps we will get SEDBUK ratings on them as well as mpg equivalents?
Rod
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A car has no insulation, as they produce so much waste heat the engines can provide enough even in the coldest conditions. Adding insulation, bonded to the cars sheet metal around the cabin, would improve matters. The drive motors and batteries produce heat, so this must be available for use.
--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And also add to the cost and weight...
I doubt that any heat would be available from motors if they are fitted into the wheel hubs.
There may be problems supplying enough electrical power for the demisters, seat heaters (oops, well I have a Saab), and other things (maybe needing a heater for the screen/headlamp wash and other currently unnecessary/rarely fitted devices).
Rod
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Insulation should not add that much weight. Cost? Mass production will bring that down.

If they are. Most electric cars have one motor.

Cars are full of unnecessary crap which add cost and weight affecting fuel consumption, such as rev counters. Why does anyone need to know how much the engine is revving in a normal road car? Beats me. I know when it is revving, I hear and feel it. If it is revved too much the management system cuts it out. An electric window on the drivers side is unnecessary too, as are electric sunroofs, which are a British fascination. The French don't want to know them.
Why isn't the a/c an absorption system using waste engine heat, instead of taking power off the crank, reducing mpg?
--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
IMM wrote:

True. Fashion accessory.
> An electric window on the drivers side is unnecessary too
IMHO its mandatory. Its the window you use the most in paying for parking tickets, and pulling them out of silly little slots only to feed them into other sily little slots later...not to mention tossing coins into teh darford crossing machines. The ability to get it down, and up, quickly, without doing more than touch a button is essential.
, as

Did you know IMM that it has been calculated that the weight, ad cost, of winding handles exceeeds teh weight, and cost, of electrically driven windows and sunroofs?
No. I don't suppose you do.
Or that the loss in power due to aerodynamic compromise of an open window in hot weather is greater than the loss due to using a modern efficient aircon?
No, I don't suppose you do.
Or that the losses in colling an engine via teh viscous fan exceed the losses in blowing hopt airt into te caboin in winter?
You probably could work tat one out..

Because its low grade power, and would need a HUGE HEAVY installation to get colling out of it.
Its time you enlisted in a snotty uni and learnt basic engineering.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

demisters,
a
unnecessary/rarely
fuel
much
is
system
don't
I knew all them, and knew them before you.

of
In the US absorption systems were found to be viable in cars.

The sort of engineering I should engage in is demolition engineering, and run bulldozers through Oxbridge, Eton, Harrow, etc. Then we will all be better off.
--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

demisters,
a
unnecessary/rarely
Please have a feeling for quantitative matters. Your car is capable of producing more than 10^5 watts and you are mithering about an instrument which uses at most 5 watts to produce data which is very valuable for enabling you to use the engine effectively?

I find it a very useful device for helping me to decide on when to change gear. It is more quantitarive than just "having a feel for it"

as
At last we are in agreement about something

Franz
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

this
fitted
Are you joking? How does a rev counter make the average driver use the engine effectively/. Most ignore it. It is pretty well useless.

99% of driver know when to change gear by the sounds and feel of the engine. I know no one who looks at a rev counters. Also this is distracting, taking the drivers eyes from the road.

don't
of
--
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com ).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 13/01/2004
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.