Electric Sonex

"Dan Nafe" wrote in message
...
... (add a GPS-informed computer to the mix and you
could
always be sure that you had enough energy to return to the field)

What a great idea!

Yes it is a great idea, but not mine. Such computers have been used
on
gliders for years.


I'll bet the sailplane systems use the GPS as a pseudo-Air Data
Computer, too. (To account for winds aloft and help avoid landing out)

The normal sailplane configuration consists of a GPS driven PDA which uses
dedicated soaring software. I have a basic system which includes a Garmin
12XL, Compaq 1550 PDA running Glide Navigator II.

http://www.soaridaho.com/photogaller.../17900_MSL.jpg shows the cockpit
configuration (notice the altimeter.) http://www.cumulus-soaring.com/gn.htm
describes Glide Navigator II capabilities.

Wayne
HP-14 N990
http://www.soaridaho.com/

"Wayne Paul" wrote in message ...
The normal sailplane configuration consists of a GPS driven PDA which uses dedicated soaring software. I have a basic
system which includes a Garmin 12XL, Compaq 1550 PDA running Glide Navigator II.

http://www.soaridaho.com/photogaller.../17900_MSL.jpg shows the cockpit configuration (notice the altimeter.)
http://www.cumulus-soaring.com/gn.htm describes Glide Navigator II capabilities.

Wayne
HP-14 N990
http://www.soaridaho.com/



17900...nice day for flying!

wrote in message
ups.com...


Meaning no offense to you personally, but I just don't believe it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------

Neither did we :-)

At that time licenses had been issued for about thirty nuke plants in
addition to those already under construction. I don't think a single
one of them was ever funded. I'm sure there were other factors
besides being brain-washed by a cartoon but when I heard about it at a
weekly status meeting I recall the odd looks I got when I asked what
he meant by 'the Simpsons.'

During that same period I recall the tree-huggers getting in a tizzie
over a coal fired plant in the midwest when the utility erected
hyperbolic cooling towers. (All that radioactive steam, you know.)

Turns out, the typical American isn't quite as bright as most people
think. Just look at the people we elect to high office :-)

I recently heard a fellow touting the glories of solar & wind over the
horrors of those terrible old tea-kettles. It took only a moment to
figure out his numbers were based on a photo-voltaic array that was
100% efficient. ( His wind turbines were equally efficient. And the
wind apparently blew all the time :-) Trying to interject a whiff of
reality into such discussions is treated with polite condescension at
best. After all, everyone knows wind & solar is good, whereas nukes
are evil.

What I find remarkable is that such massive ignorance is often the
product of a college education. Some recently published texts
continue to cite the Carrizo Plains PV project as the cutting edge of
solar technology despite the fact that facility was dismantled years
ago after its output fell so low it couldn't even power its own
tracking needs let alone feed anything into the grid. (A fact you can
confirm using satellite photos available on the internet. But of
course, that can't be right :-)

I hear Crystal Power is a good investment. That, and Electric
Aeroplanes :-)

-R.S.Hoover

What really annoys me about the college gang, much more than the 100%
efficiency foolishness, is their 100% acceptance of statements from their
trusted sources--even when it clearly contradicts their own personal
observations.

Peter

On Jul 27, 6:43 am, "Peter Dohm" wrote:


What really annoys me about the college gang, much more than the 100%
efficiency foolishness, is their 100% acceptance of statements from their
trusted sources--even when it clearly contradicts their own personal
observations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A nice example of that is one of the citations used to 'prove' that
the 'Simpson' report could not be correct. (
http://www.brookings.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb138.htm )

In the report electricity is reduced to a commodity, the decision to
heat the tea-kettle with atoms or fire determined strictly in
accordance with economic principles. All of which is hilariously
wrong. Indeed, the profound depth of ignorance reflected in the
report is what lead to the Enron scam.

At the rate we're going I've a hunch thinking for yourself is liable
to become a Terrorist Activity :-)

-R.S.Hoover

On Jul 27, 6:54 am, " wrote:

...

I recently heard a fellow touting the glories of solar & wind over the
horrors of those terrible old tea-kettles. It took only a moment to
figure out his numbers were based on a photo-voltaic array that was
100% efficient. ( His wind turbines were equally efficient. And the
wind apparently blew all the time :-) Trying to interject a whiff of
reality into such discussions is treated with polite condescension at
best. After all, everyone knows wind & solar is good, whereas nukes
are evil.


I've read that a similar approach is used to 'prove' that ethanol
production consumes more energy than is recovered by burning
it. Sunlight is included in the input side of the budget.

Of course that's perfectly correct, but don't forget to do the
same for fossil fuels...

--

FF

On Jul 27, 1:43 pm, "Peter Dohm" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...

Meaning no offense to you personally, but I just don't believe it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------



Neither did we :-)

At that time licenses had been issued for about thirty nuke plants in
addition to those already under construction. I don't think a single
one of them was ever funded. I'm sure there were other factors
besides being brain-washed by a cartoon but when I heard about it at a
weekly status meeting I recall the odd looks I got when I asked what
he meant by 'the Simpsons.'

During that same period I recall the tree-huggers getting in a tizzie
over a coal fired plant in the midwest when the utility erected
hyperbolic cooling towers. (All that radioactive steam, you know.)

Turns out, the typical American isn't quite as bright as most people
think. Just look at the people we elect to high office :-)

I recently heard a fellow touting the glories of solar & wind over the
horrors of those terrible old tea-kettles. It took only a moment to
figure out his numbers were based on a photo-voltaic array that was
100% efficient. ( His wind turbines were equally efficient. And the
wind apparently blew all the time :-) Trying to interject a whiff of
reality into such discussions is treated with polite condescension at
best. After all, everyone knows wind & solar is good, whereas nukes
are evil.

What I find remarkable is that such massive ignorance is often the
product of a college education. Some recently published texts
continue to cite the Carrizo Plains PV project as the cutting edge of
solar technology despite the fact that facility was dismantled years
ago after its output fell so low it couldn't even power its own
tracking needs let alone feed anything into the grid. (A fact you can
confirm using satellite photos available on the internet. But of
course, that can't be right :-)

I hear Crystal Power is a good investment. That, and Electric
Aeroplanes :-)

-R.S.Hoover

What really annoys me about the college gang, much more than the 100%
efficiency foolishness, is their 100% acceptance of statements from their
trusted sources--even when it clearly contradicts their own personal
observations.


Uh huh. Consider, for example, the widely-held misconception that
nuclear power plants are more energy efficient than fossil fuel
plants.

--

FF

Peter Dohm wrote:
"Vaughn Simon" wrote in message
...

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...

Cool, maybe you can answer my question. If one of the Navy Nukes
were set up and run at a continuous power how much electricity
could the plant
provide.

That is like asking how much power a Boeing 777 could supply.
On a nuclear submarine the turbines that drive the generators are
small compared to the turbines that drive the prop.

Vaughn


From all I've heard, that is a passable analogy. I've also heard that
aircraft carriers are the ones that can really generate the electric
power--and even there, the electric power is probably small compared
to the porpeller drive power.

Peter

I guess I could have asked my question better. How's this?

How big of a generator (KW or MW per hour)could a nuclear reactor, such as
one used on the newest generation of carrier, power.

On Jul 27, 6:21 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:
Peter Dohm wrote:

...

I guess I could have asked my question better. How's this?

How big of a generator (KW or MW per hour)could a nuclear reactor, such as
one used on the newest generation of carrier, power.

I _think_ that the Gerald R Ford Class carriers are to be equipped
with
two (2) each 100 MWe reactors. The Perry, Ohio BWR reactor was
planned to be about 350 MWE, if I recall correctly.

USN reactor designs are quite different from civilian reactor
designs for a number of reasons. In Particular, the former
use more highly enriched-fuel to minimize their size. That
is unnecessary for a baseline US utility, and also undesirable
from a proliferation perspective.

--

FF

wrote:
On Jul 27, 6:21 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:
Peter Dohm wrote:

...

I guess I could have asked my question better. How's this?

How big of a generator (KW or MW per hour)could a nuclear reactor,
such as one used on the newest generation of carrier, power.

I _think_ that the Gerald R Ford Class carriers are to be equipped
with
two (2) each 100 MWe reactors. The Perry, Ohio BWR reactor was
planned to be about 350 MWE, if I recall correctly.

USN reactor designs are quite different from civilian reactor
designs for a number of reasons. In Particular, the former
use more highly enriched-fuel to minimize their size. That
is unnecessary for a baseline US utility, and also undesirable
from a proliferation perspective.

FF

The thought process is that if we used smaller reactors and stop designing
the damn things everytime one get's built they would be more affordable. I
have no problem with guarding the hell out of them. It would be cheaper than
the way we have done it in the pass.

wrote in message
ups.com...
(snip)
After all, everyone knows wind & solar is good, whereas nukes
are evil.

Lately I hear the bird huggers are ****ed at the tree huggers who want wind
power.

Turns out the wind turbines make efficient bird slicers & dicers.

Rich S.