Andre Jute[_2_]
January 15th 10, 10:54 PM
On Jan 15, 10:42*pm, Peter Cole > wrote:
> Andre Jute wrote:
> > On Jan 15, 2:47 pm, Peter Cole > wrote:
> >> Andre Jute wrote:
> >>> It seems to me that maybe, in heavy city traffic with lots of braking
> >>> some noticeable fraction of braking power, though never as high as 10
> >>> per cent under the most ideal conditions, might be converted to stored
> >>> current.
> >> "stored current"??? Your estimate of 10% is based on what?
>
> > An observation of my riding patterns. Work with batteries in audio
> > circuits which I described and you cut. A WAG, which seems to be your
> > standard method.
>
> > Why don't you show us a worked case of a ride with numbers, eh,
> > Colesy? Doing a little work will soon expose your wishful thinking
> > even to yourself.
>
> >>> The work that could do, after further losses in the drive of
> >>> course, must be evaluated against the energy expanded [sic] to pedal around
> >>> the extra weight of the hub. Try as I might, I fail to grasp how
> >>> whatever you get back from that hub could be less than a small
> >>> fraction of the energy you put in dragging it around. Yet it's
> >>> presented as a perpetual motion machine.
> >> No it isn't. The net recovery is a complex function of component
> >> efficiencies.
>
> > That's what I said, Colesy.
>
> >> It is a very old idea, proven in diverse applications, and
> >> with technological development likely to become ubiquitous.
>
> > On bicycles? When this Copenhagen wheel ceases to be vaporware, call
> > me, Colesy.
>
> >>> You might look into the KERS system, now dropped after a couple of
> >>> years in Formula One auto racing.
> >> I did. I found that it has not been dropped.
>
> >>http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/08/19/f1-2010-rules-kers-to-stay/
>
> > LOL. Name the teams that will use KERS this year.
>
> >> "F1 cars will continue to use KERS in 2010.
>
> > Name the teams that will use KERS.
>
> >> Despite widespread expectations that Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems
> >> would be dropped after just one year, the new F1 regulations published
> >> today includes provision for the devices.
>
> > Name the teams that will use KERS this year.
>
> >> The F1 teams association had agreed not to use KERS next year but I m
> >> glad it s staying.
>
> > Name the teams that will use KERS.
>
> >> There has been no change to the amount of power a KERS may produce in
> >> 2010. Cars are still limited to a maximum output of 400kJ per lap,
> >> approximately 80bhp for 6.6 seconds"
>
> > Name the teams that will use KERS.
>
> >> Several players have criticized the KERS rules as being too limiting,
> >> both in power/energy limits and technology exclusion. Toyota, in quite
> >> an uncharacteristic manner, has been highly critical.
>
> >>http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/07/17/f1-should-not-be-too-hasty-to-d....
>
> >> "When the proposals were first announced Toyota engine boss Luca
> >> Marmorini said:
>
> >> * * *The adoption of energy recovery leaves me rather perplexed because
> >> the system chosen by the FIA is really primitive."
>
> > Excuses, excuses.
>
> >>> Here we're talking about violent
> >>> braking for about half the time (not half the distance) that the car
> >>> is on track, which then stores enough power in a very heavy system
> >>> that (pro rata to power requirements) would simply immobilize a bike.
> >>> Even F1 dropped KERS because the weight was just too much of a problem
> >>> for most teams to design around. The storage then released enough
> >>> power on demand for an extra boost (not full motive power, just a
> >>> boost of a few per cent) for seven or eight seconds, or roughly one-
> >>> twelfth of the lap. As I say, they've now dropped it because there are
> >>> better ways of making cars more energy efficient.
> >> They haven't dropped it, nor has it proven to be ineffective even with
> >> design rules that allow for only very limited (in capacity and
> >> technology) systems to be used.
>
> > So why can't you name any teams that will actually use KERS?
>
> > Answer: the cars are faster without KERS.
>
> >>> Bikes just don't
> >>> brake that violently, that often, or for such a huge part of the time
> >>> they are on the road. There is no reason to believe that a handful of
> >>> global warming trendies in Copenhagen can beat the brainpower and
> >>> money that auto racers in the richest sport on earth can throw at a
> >>> problem.
> >> The "richest sport on earth" has long been troubled by financial
> >> problems
>
> > LOL. A few manufacturers hit by the economic downturn dropped out.
> > Next year there are more teams on the grid than last year. As usual,
> > you haven't the faintest idea of what you're talking about, Colesy.
>
> >> and has artificially limited technology to cap expenses.
>
> > You're an idiot, Colesy. You should distinguish between the governing
> > body and the teams. The previous head of the governing body has just
> > been forced out precisely because he tried to put a budget cap in
> > place. The teams that matter threatened to split off into a separate
> > series if he proceeded, then forced him out. As I said, you haven't
> > the faintest idea of what you're talking about, Colesy. You read an
> > outdated handout from one guy who has no power to do anything, and
> > thought it was an answer. That's just about your standard method of
> > debate, and it's despicable.
>
> > Want to bet that champions this year spend a minimum of three times
> > the budget cap, and more likely twelve times as much (about half a
> > billion dollars)?
>
> >> Regenerative braking is one of those areas where financial concerns have
> >> trumped R&D.
>
> > The Copenhagen Wheel is one where wishful thinking wasted more
> > taxpayer's money, more likely.
>
> >>> And, as I've just shown, the problem is a magnitude or two
> >>> more intractable in a bicycle than in a racing car.
> >> I'm afraid you haven't shown anything, just made claims. Please feel
> >> free to "show your work" as the teachers say.
>
> > Oh, I showed you, Colesy, and you cut my reasoning, and then came up
> > with some old press release and tried to pretend it is the gospel.
> > Show me one team, just one, that will use KERS this year. Show me just
> > one team that stands a chance of winning the championship that will
> > even try to work within the *optional* budget cap. You're wanking
> > again, Colesy.
>
> >>> The efficiency loss in the regeneration system, and the charging
> >>> barrier loss too, have to be made up by another motor and all that is
> >>> available on a bicycle is Shank's Mare, your shanks...
> >>> You'll be developing well-defined leg muscles, Pete!
> >> There can be no argument that a hybrid bicycle, with or without
> >> regenerative braking, will require more net pedal energy from the
> >> cyclist over a given course than a plain bike. The principal benefit of
> >> a hybrid bike, charged during the ride rather than before, would be to
> >> lower the peak power requirements (at the expense of somewhat greater
> >> average power).
>
> > I think the principal benefit of the Copenhagen wheel, should it ever
> > cease to be vaporware, will be to make the poseurs down at the Kaffy
> > Baisikkel feel "responsible". It's not technology, it's feelgood crap
> > for shaveleg trendies.
>
> >> As motors and batteries get smaller, lighter and more
> >> efficient (and substantial progress has been made in recent times), The
> >> efficiencies and capacities get good enough that the cyclist can
> >> virtually trade a hilly route for a flat one, albeit with a slight
> >> continuous grade. The only thing that changes with improvements in
> >> technology is the effective slope of that grade. Hybrid bikes, like
> >> hybrid cars, allow small motors, and among would-be cyclists there are a
> >> lot of small motors.
>
> > That's what I said, if less pompously: "You'll be developing well-
> > defined leg muscles, Pete!"
>
> > Try again, Colesy.
>
> > Andre Jute
> > *Global Warming is like Scientology, only with less science
>
> No need to get ****y, just admit you were wrong & get over it.
You should practice what you preach so pompously, Colesy. I shot down
every one of your points. So admit you were wrong and get over it. Or:
Name one team that will use that KERS/Copenhagen crap next year.
Andre Jute
Charisma is the art of infuriating inadequates by merely doing one's
homework
> Andre Jute wrote:
> > On Jan 15, 2:47 pm, Peter Cole > wrote:
> >> Andre Jute wrote:
> >>> It seems to me that maybe, in heavy city traffic with lots of braking
> >>> some noticeable fraction of braking power, though never as high as 10
> >>> per cent under the most ideal conditions, might be converted to stored
> >>> current.
> >> "stored current"??? Your estimate of 10% is based on what?
>
> > An observation of my riding patterns. Work with batteries in audio
> > circuits which I described and you cut. A WAG, which seems to be your
> > standard method.
>
> > Why don't you show us a worked case of a ride with numbers, eh,
> > Colesy? Doing a little work will soon expose your wishful thinking
> > even to yourself.
>
> >>> The work that could do, after further losses in the drive of
> >>> course, must be evaluated against the energy expanded [sic] to pedal around
> >>> the extra weight of the hub. Try as I might, I fail to grasp how
> >>> whatever you get back from that hub could be less than a small
> >>> fraction of the energy you put in dragging it around. Yet it's
> >>> presented as a perpetual motion machine.
> >> No it isn't. The net recovery is a complex function of component
> >> efficiencies.
>
> > That's what I said, Colesy.
>
> >> It is a very old idea, proven in diverse applications, and
> >> with technological development likely to become ubiquitous.
>
> > On bicycles? When this Copenhagen wheel ceases to be vaporware, call
> > me, Colesy.
>
> >>> You might look into the KERS system, now dropped after a couple of
> >>> years in Formula One auto racing.
> >> I did. I found that it has not been dropped.
>
> >>http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/08/19/f1-2010-rules-kers-to-stay/
>
> > LOL. Name the teams that will use KERS this year.
>
> >> "F1 cars will continue to use KERS in 2010.
>
> > Name the teams that will use KERS.
>
> >> Despite widespread expectations that Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems
> >> would be dropped after just one year, the new F1 regulations published
> >> today includes provision for the devices.
>
> > Name the teams that will use KERS this year.
>
> >> The F1 teams association had agreed not to use KERS next year but I m
> >> glad it s staying.
>
> > Name the teams that will use KERS.
>
> >> There has been no change to the amount of power a KERS may produce in
> >> 2010. Cars are still limited to a maximum output of 400kJ per lap,
> >> approximately 80bhp for 6.6 seconds"
>
> > Name the teams that will use KERS.
>
> >> Several players have criticized the KERS rules as being too limiting,
> >> both in power/energy limits and technology exclusion. Toyota, in quite
> >> an uncharacteristic manner, has been highly critical.
>
> >>http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/07/17/f1-should-not-be-too-hasty-to-d....
>
> >> "When the proposals were first announced Toyota engine boss Luca
> >> Marmorini said:
>
> >> * * *The adoption of energy recovery leaves me rather perplexed because
> >> the system chosen by the FIA is really primitive."
>
> > Excuses, excuses.
>
> >>> Here we're talking about violent
> >>> braking for about half the time (not half the distance) that the car
> >>> is on track, which then stores enough power in a very heavy system
> >>> that (pro rata to power requirements) would simply immobilize a bike.
> >>> Even F1 dropped KERS because the weight was just too much of a problem
> >>> for most teams to design around. The storage then released enough
> >>> power on demand for an extra boost (not full motive power, just a
> >>> boost of a few per cent) for seven or eight seconds, or roughly one-
> >>> twelfth of the lap. As I say, they've now dropped it because there are
> >>> better ways of making cars more energy efficient.
> >> They haven't dropped it, nor has it proven to be ineffective even with
> >> design rules that allow for only very limited (in capacity and
> >> technology) systems to be used.
>
> > So why can't you name any teams that will actually use KERS?
>
> > Answer: the cars are faster without KERS.
>
> >>> Bikes just don't
> >>> brake that violently, that often, or for such a huge part of the time
> >>> they are on the road. There is no reason to believe that a handful of
> >>> global warming trendies in Copenhagen can beat the brainpower and
> >>> money that auto racers in the richest sport on earth can throw at a
> >>> problem.
> >> The "richest sport on earth" has long been troubled by financial
> >> problems
>
> > LOL. A few manufacturers hit by the economic downturn dropped out.
> > Next year there are more teams on the grid than last year. As usual,
> > you haven't the faintest idea of what you're talking about, Colesy.
>
> >> and has artificially limited technology to cap expenses.
>
> > You're an idiot, Colesy. You should distinguish between the governing
> > body and the teams. The previous head of the governing body has just
> > been forced out precisely because he tried to put a budget cap in
> > place. The teams that matter threatened to split off into a separate
> > series if he proceeded, then forced him out. As I said, you haven't
> > the faintest idea of what you're talking about, Colesy. You read an
> > outdated handout from one guy who has no power to do anything, and
> > thought it was an answer. That's just about your standard method of
> > debate, and it's despicable.
>
> > Want to bet that champions this year spend a minimum of three times
> > the budget cap, and more likely twelve times as much (about half a
> > billion dollars)?
>
> >> Regenerative braking is one of those areas where financial concerns have
> >> trumped R&D.
>
> > The Copenhagen Wheel is one where wishful thinking wasted more
> > taxpayer's money, more likely.
>
> >>> And, as I've just shown, the problem is a magnitude or two
> >>> more intractable in a bicycle than in a racing car.
> >> I'm afraid you haven't shown anything, just made claims. Please feel
> >> free to "show your work" as the teachers say.
>
> > Oh, I showed you, Colesy, and you cut my reasoning, and then came up
> > with some old press release and tried to pretend it is the gospel.
> > Show me one team, just one, that will use KERS this year. Show me just
> > one team that stands a chance of winning the championship that will
> > even try to work within the *optional* budget cap. You're wanking
> > again, Colesy.
>
> >>> The efficiency loss in the regeneration system, and the charging
> >>> barrier loss too, have to be made up by another motor and all that is
> >>> available on a bicycle is Shank's Mare, your shanks...
> >>> You'll be developing well-defined leg muscles, Pete!
> >> There can be no argument that a hybrid bicycle, with or without
> >> regenerative braking, will require more net pedal energy from the
> >> cyclist over a given course than a plain bike. The principal benefit of
> >> a hybrid bike, charged during the ride rather than before, would be to
> >> lower the peak power requirements (at the expense of somewhat greater
> >> average power).
>
> > I think the principal benefit of the Copenhagen wheel, should it ever
> > cease to be vaporware, will be to make the poseurs down at the Kaffy
> > Baisikkel feel "responsible". It's not technology, it's feelgood crap
> > for shaveleg trendies.
>
> >> As motors and batteries get smaller, lighter and more
> >> efficient (and substantial progress has been made in recent times), The
> >> efficiencies and capacities get good enough that the cyclist can
> >> virtually trade a hilly route for a flat one, albeit with a slight
> >> continuous grade. The only thing that changes with improvements in
> >> technology is the effective slope of that grade. Hybrid bikes, like
> >> hybrid cars, allow small motors, and among would-be cyclists there are a
> >> lot of small motors.
>
> > That's what I said, if less pompously: "You'll be developing well-
> > defined leg muscles, Pete!"
>
> > Try again, Colesy.
>
> > Andre Jute
> > *Global Warming is like Scientology, only with less science
>
> No need to get ****y, just admit you were wrong & get over it.
You should practice what you preach so pompously, Colesy. I shot down
every one of your points. So admit you were wrong and get over it. Or:
Name one team that will use that KERS/Copenhagen crap next year.
Andre Jute
Charisma is the art of infuriating inadequates by merely doing one's
homework