Electric Car Conversion Companies: Alternatives To Gas Powered Cars

"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:14:40 GMT, Charles Vincent
wrote:

Morgans wrote:
"Roger (K8RI)" wrote

Clutch lever? I said that Harley was "Old":-)) Not one of those
modern ones.

OK, I give up.

So old that it didn't have a transmission? g

How did you work the clutch? I'm not familiar with "old as dirt"
Harleys.

Foot operated clutch and a tank shifter. I never had a tank shifter,

Yup, Rocker clutch and tank shift 3-speed, with both on the left side.
Not exactly a bike for letting it all hang out while shifting through
the turns:-)) Hand clutch and foot shift was one whale of an
improvement for both convenience and safety.

but did ride a panhead with a jockey shift (hand shift behind the seat).

That I've not seen.


That sounds familuar but I can't recall for sure either.

There was also something like the Cushman or Mustang, that we use to full
throttle with the right twist grip. But after you got in to top gear, you
could reach under the tank with your free left hand and override the
governer on the big end.

Maxwell wrote:
...ride the governer on the big end.

That's what countless Arkansan females said about Bill wasn't it?

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Maxwell wrote:
...ride the governer on the big end.

That's what countless Arkansan females said about Bill wasn't it?

Yeah, and little did they realize at the time, the capacity of their mouths
was (1) US leader.

"BobR" wrote in message
...
I have long believed that nuclear could
provide long term solutions to power needs but only if we quit all the
bull**** political infighting and find real solutions.

We agree!

The first step
in that direction is to admit that you really do have problems that
must be solved.

What basic problems are there? We have been operating commercial power
reactors in the US for what? 50 years? What unsolved (scientific &
engineering) problems do you see? In half a century, I can't point to a case
where any member of the public has died (or even been injured) as a result of
nuclear energy. You can't say the same about fossil power.

We have had our heads up our ass for years and failed
to admit the problems with fossil fuels, lets NOT repeat the same
mistake in finding replacements.

I can't argue with that.

Vaughn

On Nov 29, 5:26 pm, "Vaughn Simon"
wrote:
"BobR" wrote in message

...

I have long believed that nuclear could
provide long term solutions to power needs but only if we quit all the
bull**** political infighting and find real solutions.

We agree!

The first step
in that direction is to admit that you really do have problems that
must be solved.

What basic problems are there? We have been operating commercial power
reactors in the US for what? 50 years? What unsolved (scientific &
engineering) problems do you see? In half a century, I can't point to a case
where any member of the public has died (or even been injured) as a result of
nuclear energy. You can't say the same about fossil power.

We have had our heads up our ass for years and failed
to admit the problems with fossil fuels, lets NOT repeat the same
mistake in finding replacements.

I can't argue with that.

Vaughn

As I mentioned earlier, the main problem I see in the nuclear industry
at this point in time and I am talking about more than just nuclear
energy is the issue of dealing with the waste materials. It is not
just a problem for the power plants but all other uses as well. With
the power generation plants, it is how to dispose of (or recycle) the
spent fuel and all other contaminated byproducts. The spent fuel
could, as someone pointed out, possibly be recycled for other uses if
some way can be found to do so safely which is the current delima.
The bigger issue though might be the other contaminated byproducts
including the cooling liquids, and the facilities themselves as they
reach their useful life and are decommisioned.

All of the contaminates must ultimately be disposed of in a manner
that does not contaminate the environment or pose health hazards to
anyone who might come in contact with them. I know, the same issues
are there with fossil fuels but that does not excuse us from proactive
decisions on nuclear issues.

Most of the contaminates from fossil fuel generation can be scrubbed
from the environment within a few years to few decades by natural
processes. Thas assumes that we don't continue to add to the
polutants. Not so for nuclear waste. The contaminates from nuclear
waste and / or nuclear accidents will take nature thousands of years
to scrub. The potiential effects are far worse. All that being said,
I would much rather live next door to a nuclear plant than a coal
plant.

This irrational fear of anything nuclear is getting to me.

I grew up in Alamogordo, NM 60 miles from the first atomic bomb test at
Trinity. The radiation was supposed to kill everybody and/or mothers were
supposed to birth two headed babies. I still have a little vial of
radioactive green glass created when the intense heat of the Trinity test
melted desert sand. I picked it up at ground zero in 1952. Nothing
happened to anyone except the area today is noted for healthy people and its
population of centenarians.

The era of atmospheric nuclear weapons testing saw more than 3000 explosions
some as large as 50 megatons. That's way more nuclear explosions than was
expected in a hypothetical WWIII. It's as if the USSR and the US agreed to
bomb themselves instead of each other. We all carry radioactive caesium 60,
strontium 90 and a little plutonium in our bodies as a result. Where are
the mutated monsters or the piles of corpses? Why has the cancer death rate
actually decreased since the mid 1940's? Where was 'nuclear winter'?

Radiation is a natural part of the environment. Granite rock is
radioactive. So is a cathode ray tube (CRT) that we all spent a lifetime in
front of. I live a mile above sea level in Colorado where cosmic radiation
is intense. Colorado is the healthiest state. We all, especialy we pilots,
spend out entire lives bathed in radioactivity but where are the cases of
radiation poisoning?

The Chernobyl reactor disaster is the worst possible scenario for a civil
power reactor. It was supposed to have killed 250,000 in Europe. Nobody
can find them. Death rates haven't changed. The best guess now is that
less than 30 were killed and those were workers at the plant or rescuers
without protective gear.

I thought it was hilarious when DHS stopped a freighter from Central America
because it set off their radiation detectors - it was full of banana's.
Banana trees concentrate naturally occurring radioactive potassium in the
fruit. Anybody plan to quit eating bananas?

Like almost anything, if you get too much of it, it will hurt you. Current
safety measures are quite enough - in fact they are probably mega-overkill.

What IS an ongoing disaster is the burning of coal and oil because we are
afraid of nuclear power. Since the nuclear age began millions have
verifiably been killed by the production, transport and burnig of fossil
fuels. We may also have ruined our planet.

Bill Daniels

"BobR" wrote in message
...

As I mentioned earlier, the main problem I see in the nuclear industry
at this point in time and I am talking about more than just nuclear
energy is the issue of dealing with the waste materials.

And I pointed out that those "problems" have been solved for decades (except
for the politics) and furthermore, fossil plants have horrendous unsolved waste
problems. Problems that sicken people, kill people, and even threaton the
future viability of our planet. Why is this so hard to see?

It is not
just a problem for the power plants but all other uses as well. With
the power generation plants, it is how to dispose of (or recycle) the
spent fuel and all other contaminated byproducts.

Fuel recycling is a solved problem. We don't recycle fuel because the
process makes potentially bomb-grade fisionable material which must be
safeguarded to ensure that is is used for fuel modules, not blowing things up.
Of course, we spend (or at least have spent) billions to operate special
reactors for the express purpose of making bomb-grade material while we argue
about how to store our used (recycleable) fuel modules.

The spent fuel
could, as someone pointed out, possibly be recycled for other uses if
some way can be found to do so safely which is the current delima.
The bigger issue though might be the other contaminated byproducts
including the cooling liquids, and the facilities themselves as they
reach their useful life and are decommisioned.

We have been decommissioning plants for decades, we know how to do it. The
Navy has decommissioned hundreds of nuclear reactors, including my old
submarine.

I know, the same issues
are there with fossil fuels but that does not excuse us from proactive
decisions on nuclear issues.

Again, the storage "problem" is long solved, except for the politics. ****,
even the Egyptians knew how to build buildings that could last thousands of
years, and they did it thousands of years ago. What makes you think that we
can't do it today?

Most of the contaminates from fossil fuel generation can be scrubbed
from the environment within a few years to few decades by natural
processes.

Proof?

Thas assumes that we don't continue to add to the
polutants.

And the chances of that are? Let's deal with reality here please, and
seriously consider what we are doing to our environment.

Not so for nuclear waste. The contaminates from nuclear
waste and / or nuclear accidents will take nature thousands of years
to scrub.

We don't have to "scrub" nuclear waste from the environment" because, unlike
with fossil plants, the deadly waste is not allowed to enter the environment.

The potiential effects are far worse.

Agreed, at least in the near term. Unfortunately, we are not sure yet what
the environmental results of thousands of fossil plants to our planet, but we
are running the grand experiment today! That said, nuclear plants need to be
designed & operated under very strict supervision. Operating them is serious
business.

All that being said,
I would much rather live next door to a nuclear plant than a coal
plant.

Agreed again. I have literally lived in the same vehicle with a nuclear
power plant for months at a time. Unlike the anti-nukes, I have taken the
trouble to learn about nuclear power. (OK, actually I am an ex-Navy nuclear
reactor operator.) I have personally met the dragon and it is not as fearsome a
creature as some folks would lead you to believe. I just can't believe the
damage we are doing to the environment and to ourselves by continuing to eshue
nuclear energy in favor fossil power.

Can we get back to airplanes now?

Vaughn

On Nov 29, 8:30 pm, "Vaughn Simon"
wrote:
"BobR" wrote in message

...



As I mentioned earlier, the main problem I see in the nuclear industry
at this point in time and I am talking about more than just nuclear
energy is the issue of dealing with the waste materials.

And I pointed out that those "problems" have been solved for decades (except
for the politics) and furthermore, fossil plants have horrendous unsolved waste
problems. Problems that sicken people, kill people, and even threaton the
future viability of our planet. Why is this so hard to see?

It is not
just a problem for the power plants but all other uses as well. With
the power generation plants, it is how to dispose of (or recycle) the
spent fuel and all other contaminated byproducts.

Fuel recycling is a solved problem. We don't recycle fuel because the
process makes potentially bomb-grade fisionable material which must be
safeguarded to ensure that is is used for fuel modules, not blowing things up.
Of course, we spend (or at least have spent) billions to operate special
reactors for the express purpose of making bomb-grade material while we argue
about how to store our used (recycleable) fuel modules.

The spent fuel
could, as someone pointed out, possibly be recycled for other uses if
some way can be found to do so safely which is the current delima.
The bigger issue though might be the other contaminated byproducts
including the cooling liquids, and the facilities themselves as they
reach their useful life and are decommisioned.

We have been decommissioning plants for decades, we know how to do it. The
Navy has decommissioned hundreds of nuclear reactors, including my old
submarine.

I know, the same issues
are there with fossil fuels but that does not excuse us from proactive
decisions on nuclear issues.

Again, the storage "problem" is long solved, except for the politics. ****,
even the Egyptians knew how to build buildings that could last thousands of
years, and they did it thousands of years ago. What makes you think that we
can't do it today?

Most of the contaminates from fossil fuel generation can be scrubbed
from the environment within a few years to few decades by natural
processes.

Proof?

Thas assumes that we don't continue to add to the
polutants.

And the chances of that are? Let's deal with reality here please, and
seriously consider what we are doing to our environment.

Not so for nuclear waste. The contaminates from nuclear
waste and / or nuclear accidents will take nature thousands of years
to scrub.

We don't have to "scrub" nuclear waste from the environment" because, unlike
with fossil plants, the deadly waste is not allowed to enter the environment.

The potiential effects are far worse.

Agreed, at least in the near term. Unfortunately, we are not sure yet what
the environmental results of thousands of fossil plants to our planet, but we
are running the grand experiment today! That said, nuclear plants need to be
designed & operated under very strict supervision. Operating them is serious
business.

All that being said,
I would much rather live next door to a nuclear plant than a coal
plant.

Agreed again. I have literally lived in the same vehicle with a nuclear
power plant for months at a time. Unlike the anti-nukes, I have taken the
trouble to learn about nuclear power. (OK, actually I am an ex-Navy nuclear
reactor operator.) I have personally met the dragon and it is not as fearsome a
creature as some folks would lead you to believe. I just can't believe the
damage we are doing to the environment and to ourselves by continuing to eshue
nuclear energy in favor fossil power.

Can we get back to airplanes now?

Vaughn

Sure we can get back to planes...do you have a nuclear powered plane?
BG

The point that you seem to miss is that an issue is not solved until
all issues are resolved including the most important one which is the
political will to solve them. We have the technology to solve the
vast majority of our current polution issues with fossil fuels but we
refuse to invest the monies to implement them. The same holds true
for the nuclear industry. The difference is that the general public
isn't going to and should accept that same attitude toward nuclear.

"Bill Daniels" bildan@comcast-dot-net wrote in message
. ..
This irrational fear of anything nuclear is getting to me.

I grew up in Alamogordo, NM 60 miles from the first atomic bomb test at
Trinity. The radiation was supposed to kill everybody and/or mothers were
supposed to birth two headed babies. I still have a little vial of
radioactive green glass created when the intense heat of the Trinity test
melted desert sand. I picked it up at ground zero in 1952. Nothing
happened to anyone except the area today is noted for healthy people and
its population of centenarians.

The era of atmospheric nuclear weapons testing saw more than 3000
explosions some as large as 50 megatons. That's way more nuclear
explosions than was expected in a hypothetical WWIII. It's as if the USSR
and the US agreed to bomb themselves instead of each other. We all carry
radioactive caesium 60, strontium 90 and a little plutonium in our bodies
as a result. Where are the mutated monsters or the piles of corpses? Why
has the cancer death rate actually decreased since the mid 1940's? Where
was 'nuclear winter'?

Radiation is a natural part of the environment. Granite rock is
radioactive. So is a cathode ray tube (CRT) that we all spent a lifetime
in front of. I live a mile above sea level in Colorado where cosmic
radiation is intense. Colorado is the healthiest state. We all,
especialy we pilots, spend out entire lives bathed in radioactivity but
where are the cases of radiation poisoning?

The Chernobyl reactor disaster is the worst possible scenario for a civil
power reactor. It was supposed to have killed 250,000 in Europe. Nobody
can find them. Death rates haven't changed. The best guess now is that
less than 30 were killed and those were workers at the plant or rescuers
without protective gear.

I thought it was hilarious when DHS stopped a freighter from Central
America because it set off their radiation detectors - it was full of
banana's. Banana trees concentrate naturally occurring radioactive
potassium in the fruit. Anybody plan to quit eating bananas?

Like almost anything, if you get too much of it, it will hurt you.
Current safety measures are quite enough - in fact they are probably
mega-overkill.

What IS an ongoing disaster is the burning of coal and oil because we are
afraid of nuclear power. Since the nuclear age began millions have
verifiably been killed by the production, transport and burnig of fossil
fuels. We may also have ruined our planet.

Bill Daniels


My sentiments exactly.

Al G