NASA's biggest worry right now: What if something goes wrong with the Webb telescope?

Paul Schlyter:
Then why not have 220V in all outlets, like we have?

U.S. homes have 240V at the distribution panel, 120V at *most*
receptacles. I have several 240V receptacles for special purposes. The
reason is that we've always done it that way. We began doing it that
way because in the 19th and early 20th centuries bare wires were strung
between insulator posts; reliable insulation was not available. A shock
from 120V was deemed less likely to be fatal than one from 240V. With
most U.S. household appliances being built for 120V, it would be
cumbersome and expensive to switch to 240V at the receptacles, and
there is no sound reason to do so.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 9:44:55 AM UTC-7, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:

You've just condemned 11 million people in Los Angeles to slow
starvation due to the utter inability to get to work. Really.

Providing them with decent public transit, as opposed to taking away their cars,
does no such thing. But I will agree with you that those who intend to take away
their cars and _not_ provide the public transit first, are going to end up doing
that.

John Savard

On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 9:54:26 AM UTC-7, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:

That's what required if you want to transfer energy into an electric
car as fast as a gasoline pump can.

It's possible that the rate at which a gasoline pump transfers energy is not the
minimum rate of energy transfer that is necessary. If one could put the
electrical equivalent of a full tank of gas into an electric car in, say, half
an hour, that might be workable.

Or even, say, in four hours, while one is at work or something.

Of course, that means a need for many more chargers than there are gas pumps.

John Savard

On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 10:31:14 -0500, Davoud wrote:

Paul Schlyter:
Then why not have 220V in all outlets, like we have?

U.S. homes have 240V at the distribution panel, 120V at *most*
receptacles. I have several 240V receptacles for special purposes. The
reason is that we've always done it that way. We began doing it that
way because in the 19th and early 20th centuries bare wires were strung
between insulator posts; reliable insulation was not available. A shock
from 120V was deemed less likely to be fatal than one from 240V. With
most U.S. household appliances being built for 120V, it would be
cumbersome and expensive to switch to 240V at the receptacles, and
there is no sound reason to do so.

This is true for electrical appliances. It is worth noting that almost
all electronic devices operate automatically from any mains power
system used in the world.

For electrical devices, there is seldom any practical difference
whether they are designed for 120 or 220 volt operation. However, in
most cases 60 Hz is more efficient than 50 Hz.

On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 9:58:10 AM UTC-7, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
Paul Schlyter wrote in
:

Or you can use public transportation.

For a road trip to Yosemite? Or Nebraska? Or "out to the desert"?
You're smoking the same Kool-Aid as Chris is. You are literally
delusional if you believe that "public transportation" can replace
gasoline powered cars for long road trips.

(Not to mention, even if it did, those busses would still be
hydrocarbon powered, because electric just can't do it.)

Going to work, one can use trolley buses, so that form of public transportation
can be electric. You're quite right, though, that the equivalent of a Greyhound
bus will have to use hydrocarbon fuel.

While the U.S. has done marvelous things with its submarine fleet, I don't think
we are prepared for nuclear-powered buses on the roads; there are too many car
accidents for that to be considered safe.

John Savard

On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 9:58:10 AM UTC-7, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
Paul Schlyter wrote in
:

Or you can use public transportation.

For a road trip to Yosemite? Or Nebraska? Or "out to the desert"?
You're smoking the same Kool-Aid as Chris is. You are literally
delusional if you believe that "public transportation" can replace
gasoline powered cars for long road trips.

(Not to mention, even if it did, those busses would still be
hydrocarbon powered, because electric just can't do it.)

Going to work, one can use trolley buses, so that form of public transportation
can be electric. You're quite right, though, that the equivalent of a Greyhound
bus will have to use hydrocarbon fuel.

While the U.S. has done marvelous things with its submarine fleet, I don't think
we are prepared for nuclear-powered buses on the roads; there are too many car
accidents for that to be considered safe.

https://www.damninteresting.com/the-atomic-automobile/
https://www.hemmings.com/magazine/hm...n/3695241.html
http://gtspirit.com/2012/04/08/remar...he-atomic-car/

....in fact, even other carmakers got into the act:

https://www.autoblog.com/2014/07/17/...-classic-cars/

And apparently the Ford Nucleon was preceded by the Ford Mystere... but that was just an ordinary car with futuristic styling perhaps.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdxibxcTc6U

John Savard

On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 07:55:36 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 9:44:55 AM UTC-7, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:

You've just condemned 11 million people in Los Angeles to slow
starvation due to the utter inability to get to work. Really.

Providing them with decent public transit, as opposed to taking away their cars,
does no such thing. But I will agree with you that those who intend to take away
their cars and _not_ provide the public transit first, are going to end up doing
that.

I don't see LA developing a high quality public transit system anytime
soon. But neither do I see them taking away people's cars.

It's not hard to envision what's actually likely to happen. First of
all, more and more new cars will be plug-in hybrids. We're seeing this
rapid shift already- many of the announced high end models for the
next year are available with this option. That will drive the
expansion of public and private charging stations, which will itself
make electric-only cars more practical and more popular. A bit of a
wildcard at this point is the development of autonomous vehicles.
These will probably first show up in fairly controlled environments
such as inner cities, and will facilitate shared ownership and new
public transit systems. They will probably be mostly EV from the
start.

Economically, EVs and plug-in hybrids will be driven also by popular
demand. They are desirable cars. They outperform gasoline cars. They
are simpler and potentially more reliable.

All of this will play out the way we've seen other technology develop,
as these things feed back on each other. I imagine that in 20 years
most cars will be EVs, many will be autonomous and all will be
semi-autonomous. In the U.S. there will still be gasoline cars on the
roads, because banning them doesn't seem like something we're likely
to do (but they might be off limits in some areas, like large cities).
But they'll be the exception, not the rule.

On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 07:58:22 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 9:54:26 AM UTC-7, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:

That's what required if you want to transfer energy into an electric
car as fast as a gasoline pump can.

It's possible that the rate at which a gasoline pump transfers energy is not the
minimum rate of energy transfer that is necessary. If one could put the
electrical equivalent of a full tank of gas into an electric car in, say, half
an hour, that might be workable.

And in the vast majority of cases, there is no need to "fill the
tank". The way battery charging works, you can add a large charge in a
short time, just not a full charge. There are already high capacity
battery systems like those used for cars which can receive a 30%
charge in just a few minutes. That is probably sufficient for the
majority of users the majority of the time.

Of course, that means a need for many more chargers than there are gas pumps.

But chargers are a considerably more straightforward technology to
provide. No massive holes with tanks, minimal environmental concerns,
not need for a separate liquid delivery infrastructure for support.

Paul Schlyter wrote in
:

On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 08:47:03 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
Kujisalimisha wrote:
Paul Schlyter wrote in
:


On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 08:07:00 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
Almost every home has 220V service with 30-50A fusing. Of
course,
not
for every outlet, so it's true that a new outlet might need
to be installed in the garage.

I thought the US had 110V in their outlets. Did thar change?
Did you switch to 50Hz as well?

Most of the outlets aer 110 volts. But the service coming into
the house is always 220 volt, three phase, which is commonly
split into two 110 volt sides. (Except when there's 440 volt
three phase,
which
is rare in residences.) Electric stoves and dryers (which
generally requires 200 volt, 3 phase) are common enough that
pretty much all homes have it available (I suspect it's
required by building codes, in fact).

Why are the three phases split into only two sides? What
happened to the third phase?

Maybe you should find a local community college and sign up for a
remedial vo-tech class.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Paul Schlyter wrote in
:

On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 07:39:14 -0700, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
Nothing that doesn't already exist is certain. I mean, we still
don't
have a cure for AIDS.

Some things are certain enough.

We need the phrase "relatively certain" as opposed to "absolutely
certain"... :-)

I vote for "Chris is delusional."

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.