A Sky, cable and digital tv forum. Digital TV Banter

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.

Go Back   Home » Digital TV Banter forum » Digital TV Newsgroups » uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General) (uk.tech.digital-tv) Discussion of all matters technical in origin related to the reception of digital television transmissions, be they via satellite, terrestrial or cable. Advertising is forbidden, with no exceptions.

bbc inacuracies



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old September 20th 17, 10:43 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Roderick Stewart[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,131
Default bbc inacuracies

On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 15:41:06 +0200, Martin wrote:

Cars need to have swappable battery packs to make them practical.


Agreed. This seems to me the only avenue worth exploring. Mobile
phones and the like can be charged anywhere, and their typical usage
has a duty cycle that includes at least six hours while their owners
are asleep, but this isn't always true of cars. We've grown accustomed
to being able to make journeys much longer than the energy storage
capacity of our cars, and we don't need to break such journeys with
overnight stays because it's possible to recharge a fuel tank in
minutes. There's no escaping from the fact that to charge any kind of
energy store in one hundredth of its normal running time you need to
shove energy into it at a hundred times its normal rate. This can
easily be achieved with chemical energy in the form of petrol in a
tank, but not with electricity in a battery. You can't defeat the laws
of physics. Even if you can design a battery that can take a hundred
times its normal current, it's doubtful if many parts of our
electricity supply infrastructure could cope, certainly not any
typical domestic supply with a 60A fuse.

Rod.
  #32  
Old September 20th 17, 11:26 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Norman Wells[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 942
Default bbc inacuracies

On 20/09/2017 12:14, Martin wrote:
On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 11:43:45 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 15:41:06 +0200, Martin wrote:

Cars need to have swappable battery packs to make them practical.


Agreed. This seems to me the only avenue worth exploring. Mobile
phones and the like can be charged anywhere, and their typical usage
has a duty cycle that includes at least six hours while their owners
are asleep, but this isn't always true of cars. We've grown accustomed
to being able to make journeys much longer than the energy storage
capacity of our cars, and we don't need to break such journeys with
overnight stays because it's possible to recharge a fuel tank in
minutes. There's no escaping from the fact that to charge any kind of
energy store in one hundredth of its normal running time you need to
shove energy into it at a hundred times its normal rate. This can
easily be achieved with chemical energy in the form of petrol in a
tank, but not with electricity in a battery. You can't defeat the laws
of physics. Even if you can design a battery that can take a hundred
times its normal current, it's doubtful if many parts of our
electricity supply infrastructure could cope, certainly not any
typical domestic supply with a 60A fuse.


From what Andy said and quoted, Tesla knows that and I suspect the cost of a
full network of replace battery centres is not economically viable. I don't
believe the trial between SF and LA is typical. The obvious place to have
replacement centres in an existing filling stations, but
a) Oil companies would not be very enthusiastic.
b)Tthe volume of material to be stored per car is far more than that needed for
petrol/diesel
c)More staff would be needed

OTOH I know an Italian couple who own two Teslas and don't find it a problem to
drive to & fro between NL and N Italy. Don't ask me why. When I asked all I got
was "it is not a problem". With a hydrocarbon vehicle it can be done in one day.
With a battery car it would need at least two recharges. there's a recharge
point in a public car park about a mile from where I live. Nobody has ever seen
anybody use it.

There's also the problem of course of how to deal with cars that become
stranded having run out of juice. You can't just send an AA man round
with a jerry can or even a replacement battery pack.
  #33  
Old September 20th 17, 11:43 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Andy Burns[_12_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 378
Default bbc inacuracies

Martin wrote:

I don't believe the trial between SF and LA is typical.

Does seem an odd choice, is there much commuting between the two cites?
Musk must think so as the hyperloop aims to operate between those two
cities as well.

The obvious place to have replacement centres in an existing filling
stations

But then you still need sufficient electricity supply to recharge all
the flat batteries, ok you can spread the demand out throughout a 24
hour or 7 day period if you have room to pile them high, rather than
having to have the capacity available for everyone as they arrive, a
single petrol/diesel pump being equivalent to a 5-10 MW supply.

Flow batteries are another alternative, but AIUI don't have the same
energy density.
  #34  
Old September 20th 17, 12:24 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Andy Burns[_12_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 378
Default bbc inacuracies

Martin wrote:

I know an Italian couple who own two Teslas and don't find it a
problem to drive to & fro between NL and N Italy.

I thought the standard Italian domestic mains supply was a feeble 6kW,
but then if you can afford a couple of Teslas ...

  #35  
Old September 20th 17, 01:45 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Andy Burns[_12_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 378
Default bbc inacuracies

Martin wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

I thought the standard Italian domestic mains supply was a feeble 6kW,
but then if you can afford a couple of Teslas ...


Since they have modern electric ovens in Italy they probably have three phase
like we had to install in NL.


Seems I overstated it, from an Italian gas/elec/phone/tv comparison site

"The most commonly used power for households is 3 kW."

  #36  
Old September 20th 17, 02:07 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
charles[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 607
Default bbc inacuracies

In article ,
Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 15:41:06 +0200, Martin wrote:


Cars need to have swappable battery packs to make them practical.


Agreed. This seems to me the only avenue worth exploring. Mobile
phones and the like can be charged anywhere, and their typical usage
has a duty cycle that includes at least six hours while their owners
are asleep, but this isn't always true of cars.


Indeed, police cars thed to be driven 24/7.



We've grown accustomed to being able to make journeys much longer than
the energy storage capacity of our cars, and we don't need to break such
journeys with overnight stays because it's possible to recharge a fuel
tank in minutes. There's no escaping from the fact that to charge any
kind of energy store in one hundredth of its normal running time you need
to shove energy into it at a hundred times its normal rate. This can
easily be achieved with chemical energy in the form of petrol in a tank,
but not with electricity in a battery. You can't defeat the laws of
physics. Even if you can design a battery that can take a hundred times
its normal current, it's doubtful if many parts of our electricity supply
infrastructure could cope, certainly not any typical domestic supply with
a 60A fuse.


Rod.


--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
  #37  
Old September 20th 17, 02:13 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
NY
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,187
Default bbc inacuracies

"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
Martin wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

I thought the standard Italian domestic mains supply was a feeble 6kW,
but then if you can afford a couple of Teslas ...


Since they have modern electric ovens in Italy they probably have three
phase
like we had to install in NL.


Seems I overstated it, from an Italian gas/elec/phone/tv comparison site

"The most commonly used power for households is 3 kW."


So no electric shower. Limit to the number of cooker rings that you can have
on at the same time as the oven, no electric fire at same time as cooker.
Having to limit which appliances you can use simultaneously must be a real
problem. I suppose the Italians are used to it, but lucky people like us,
with 60 A fuses and therefore in theory 14.5 MW max power, would find it a
problem when we're used to not having to think about which appliances can't
be used together.

When we had to replace our electric shower (the old one was not repairable)
it was hard to find one that had a low enough power rating to work with the
existing wire which my electrician father-in-law said was rated at 7 kW
(30A). Replacing the cable would have been a major job as there were places
where it was buried directly in plaster, not in conduit...

  #38  
Old September 20th 17, 02:59 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Java Jive[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,689
Default bbc inacuracies

On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 13:04:26 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 23:41:30 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 16:46:59 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:

In response to your vituperative and intemperate comments above, I
hear on the news today that the high priests of your religion


I am accepting the scientific consensus. That's not religion - every
time religion has clashed with science, religion has lost, as yours
will.


I note that you attempt no come-back regarding your wishful
misunderstanding of the original report.

You are suggesting that anyone who disagrees with the scientific concensus does so for
quasi-religious reasons.


You are generalising from the particular, you, to 'anyone'. I have
never said that '*anyone* who disagrees with the scientific concensus
does so for quasi-religious reasons', only that your, and a great many
others', style of argument suggests that you and they do, in that it
shares many of the same logical shortcomings, which I have highlighted
in my replies.

That's arrant nonsense.


I wouldn't describe it as 'arrant nonsense', but certainly I would be
happy describe it as an unjustifiable exaggeration. However, I have
not made such a claim, so whatever either of us chooses to call it is
irrelevant anyway.

While there are plenty of people of both sides of
the AGW argument who would fit into that category, a great many don't. But there are plenty of
intelligent people, well-qualified engineers and even climatologists who don't accept the AGW
hypothesis. Do they hold those opinions because they have a quasi-religious opposition to AGW? Of
course not. To suggest that they do says more about you than them. They do so because they find the
arguments unconvincing, or the data is too conflicting to advance any hypothesis of substance.


Yet another opinion stated as fact. Where are your figures to
substantiate this?

And anyway, you have previously stated that there was no point to
continuing this discussion. The fact that you are now doing so again,
yet have no further evidence to support your creed beyond that which
has already been debunked, suggests that you have an emotional
investment beyond what is rational and scientific - that is you lie
somewhere on a scale between being unable to accept that you have
spent some considerable time believing in a falsehood, to being a
fully-paid-up member of the Heartland Institute or some similar
organisation. I don't care particularly where on this scale you lie,
I just simply note that indeed there is no point in continuing this
discussion, because you seem unable to produce any rational evidence
to support anything you say.
--
================================================== ======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
  #39  
Old September 20th 17, 06:35 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Indy Jess John
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,202
Default bbc inacuracies

On 20/09/2017 15:07, charles wrote:
In ,
Roderick wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 15:41:06 +0200, wrote:


Cars need to have swappable battery packs to make them practical.


Agreed. This seems to me the only avenue worth exploring. Mobile
phones and the like can be charged anywhere, and their typical usage
has a duty cycle that includes at least six hours while their owners
are asleep, but this isn't always true of cars.


Indeed, police cars thed to be driven 24/7.

Some taxis too. Three drivers on 8-hour shifts can keep one operating
for 24 hours.
Jim

  #40  
Old September 21st 17, 09:16 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Roderick Stewart[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,131
Default bbc inacuracies

On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 15:13:14 +0100, "NY" wrote:

but lucky people like us,
with 60 A fuses and therefore in theory 14.5 MW max power,


I think your typing fingers have betrayed you...

Rod.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.SEO by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2017 Digital TV Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.