BlackSabb

I knew that diesel electric hybrids like I suggested have been common in trains. My question is why aren't these hybrids being built for cars?

Hi everyone. I have a question regarding hybrid cars. The average hybrid car consists of an electric and petrol motor with a large and heavy battery pack. Usually, the petrol and electric motors run separately, with the electric motor running when light power is required and the petrol motor cutting in when extra power is needed. Of course, the battery requires external charging from a mains socket. I was thinking why you couldn't have a hybrid with a petrol engine that runs continuosly, not connected to the transmission but only recharging the battery? My rationale for this is that you wouldn't need a large battery pack requiring about 6-8 hrs of runninig time. The battery pack on my proposed hybrid would only have enough power for 1hr or less. But it would only need that much as the petrol engine would continously recharge it. There would be an obvious major advantage in having a hybrid vehicle with only a small and light battery pack. But there would be also major advantages for the petrol engine. Because it only recharges the battery and is not connected to the transmission, you could easily calibrate the petrol engine to a very limited rev range that is optimial for producing electrical power. You wouldn't need all this fancy direct injection, twin turbo charging, variable valve inlet and exhaust valve heads etc. You would only need a simple engine with a simple valve system that is designed for good efficiency at a narrow rev band-ideal for producing electrical power. perhaps too a very long stroke moter such as 110 mm which produces lots of torque simply. Basically, I would have just enough batteries for a few minutes of power but constantly recharged through the running of the petrol engine. What do you all think?

Hahahaha....nice one!

Hi everyone. I was just wondering why cats are strongly associated with females? I ask this because as a guy that loves cats, I was told by a woman once that I was "weird". I'm grateful I didn't tell her of my crossdressing! (just kidding). I've noticed in advertising too that cats are generally associated with girls/women. The majority of cat food commercials have women whilst dog food commericals have men. I was intrigued once when I saw a women once wearing stockings that had a cat motif around the ankles. I mean, you wouldn't put a German shepherd motif around the feet of stockings for a woman to wear, now would you? Think of superheroes. Only a woman is portrayed as a cat (catwoman funnily enough). I saw a commerical once encouraging people to adopt cats. The voice of was a girl that said that how she was delighted that her brother was so "gentle" around the cat. As opposed to his homicidal tendencies when he was romping with the doberman (kidding). Is it because cats are graceful in their movements that they are associated with females? Or some other reason? Because even though I have 3, I can tell you they're not always "graceful". Sure, they purr and sit in your lap and sleep on top of your bed curled up and look all cute and slinky. But they are also ferocious, they bite, they hiss, they cough up fur balls (nasty stuff), their poo smells frigging awful. Their retractable claws are anything but feminine and their fangs would make a goth proud. So what's with this female association with cats? Think of the traditional image too of the witch with a black cat. P.S. I thought I might get in contact with a hosiery company and suggest that they put this cat motif on stockings. What do you all think?

See, that's what I thought. And yet to me it doesn't add up. Again, let's say that each wind turbine produces enough energy for 1000 homes. I find it hard to believe that the bit of wind that causes a turbine to spin is the equivalent enery of 1000 homes electrical output. It doesn't take much wind for one of those turbines to spin. I'm just having a hard time imagining that the wind energy acting on those blades is the equivalent of so much power (1000 homes). What I'm saying is this. That I can't believe that the wind energy acting on the turbine is the combined output of 1000 stoves and ovens, 1000 hot water heaters, 1000 air conditioners and heaters etc. In other words, tens of thousands of electrical appliances all running together is the same amount of gentle wind energy to turn a wind turbine. I'm theorising it but not imagining it.

Hi everyone. I have a stupid question about those giant 3 fan blade wind turbines. Before I start, I'm not an engineer or anything like that. I work in the health field actually, but I had a thought that has been bugging me for ages. I heard someone say that one of those giant wind turbines can generate electrical power to supply 1000 homes. Now let for argument sake, we say that each wind turbine generates 1 million watts (1 megawatt). Please excuse me if that figure is way off, (it most probably is) but it's an easy round number for the purposes of this argument. What I was thinking was this. How much power would it take for an electrical motor to turn the wind turbine? I'm sure you're thinking "well what's the point of that?". What I was thinking is that it would not take the combined electrical output of 1000 homes to turn that wind turbine. In other words, even though a wind turbine can produce 1 million watts, it wouldn't take that much energy to turn it electrically (instead of the wind). Let's say for argument that it takes 200 000 watts of energy to turn it. So in other words, you could get far more energy than you put in. I drive by these windmills all the time and as I gaze upon it, I can't imagine that it takes the energy of 1000 homes to turn one. So what is wrong with this theory? As I said, I'm not an engineer so I'm sure I've stated some obvious blunder. But this has been bugging me for ages, so I'm just dying to know. Thank you.