On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 05:42:11 -0700 (PDT), Hog <york996@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Do you know about Telma electromagnetic (eddy current) brakes? as deployed on Swiss buses since (at least) 1970. I was fascinated to find out about them during a first visit.

Ooh, never heard of them.

<googles>

Oh, they save on pads, but other than that, they just dump energy into
the environment like mechanical brakes. I guess less likely to lock
the wheels in slippery conditions though.

--

-Pip

Pipl <pluscher@live.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 05:42:11 -0700 (PDT), Hog <york996@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Do you know about Telma electromagnetic (eddy current) brakes? as
>>deployed on Swiss buses since (at least) 1971. I was fascinated to find
>>out about them during a first visit.
>
> Ooh, never heard of them.

Same here.

> <googles>
>
> Oh, they save on pads, but other than that, they just dump energy into
> the environment like mechanical brakes. I guess less likely to lock
> the wheels in slippery conditions though.

Yep, a built-in antilock of sorts.

I seem to remember there was a time in the 70s when everyone was excited
about flywheel energy storage for recovering braking energy. It has the
advantage of being able to "charge" and "discharge" at high rates, but
presumably would require a gimbaled mount to avoid comedy incidents while
cornering, so consumes a lot of space vs. the amount of energy stored.

Yep - here it is, I remember this issue, my dad was a subscriber.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/192154728646

One I don't remember, but a bus this time:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/304988967753
--
FJR1300A, GL1000, KLR650A6F, EX250J9A, DR200SE, Vespa Ciao

Pete Fisher wrote:
> Hog wrote:
> > Pete Fisher wrote:
> >> BTW, you do realise that the ULEZ is far more about levels of NOx and
> >> PM2.5s than CO2 ? Doesn't change the thrust of your argument.
> >
> > Yes, but those are reduced commensurately with 80mpg+ vehicles, that weight 500kg less than an EV.
> > But I don't think ULEZ is really about NOx...
>
> Not now, so much. I agree. Infrastructure for road pricing.

So what though?

I can understand privacy concerns about movement being tracked, but that's halfway there already. But tolling? We already effectively that in the form of fuel duty. With the shift away from IC engines, that becomes less effective. So, privacy issues aside, why not replace it with something more direct?

As far as emissions are concerned, what's being introduced now is minimal compared to, say, the Crit'Air/LEZ-m restrictions in France:

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motoring-news/law-change-for-uk-drivers-in-french-cities/
"From July 2023, more stringent rules have been introduced in the ZCR, meaning that only vehicles displaying Crit’Air vignettes E, 1 or 2 are allowed to enter the city between 0800 and 2000, Monday to Friday. From January 2024, the scheme becomes more restricted with all diesel vehicles set to be banned from entering and only vehicles displaying Crit'Air E or 1 vignettes being permitted. A zero-emissons zone is planned for 2030."

Even my 2016 S1000XR only gets a 2, at best.

ogden <eldaifo@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6407d448-b6e0-4981-ac29-7336292b24d5n@googlegroups.com:

> As far as emissions are concerned, what's being introduced now is
> minimal compared to, say, the Crit'Air/LEZ-m restrictions in France:
>
> https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motoring-news/law-change-for-uk-driver
> s-in-french-cities/ "From July 2023, more stringent rules have been
> introduced in the ZCR, meaning that only vehicles displaying
> Crit’Air vignettes E, 1 or 2 are allowed to enter the city between
> 0800 and 2000, Monday to Friday. From January 2024, the scheme becomes
> more restricted with all diesel vehicles set to be banned from
> entering and only vehicles displaying Crit'Air E or 1 vignettes being
> permitted. A zero-emissons zone is planned for 2030."
>
> Even my 2016 S1000XR only gets a 2, at best.
>

the phasing out of level 2 access in 2024 only applies to Paris I believe.
In the provincial cities, the LEZ varies but few go beyond banning level 3
www.france.fr/en/holiday-prep/crit-air-anti-pollution-vehicle-sticker

I've been checking on Belgian LEZ as Ghent and Antwerp have them, which
could figure in 2024 plans. Seems they do not include motorcycles in the
LEZ, for now.

wessie wrote:
> ogden wrote :
> > As far as emissions are concerned, what's being introduced now is
> > minimal compared to, say, the Crit'Air/LEZ-m restrictions in France:
> >
> > https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motoring-news/law-change-for-uk-driver
> > s-in-french-cities/ "From July 2023, more stringent rules have been
> > introduced in the ZCR, meaning that only vehicles displaying
> > Crit’Air vignettes E, 1 or 2 are allowed to enter the city between
> > 0800 and 2000, Monday to Friday. From January 2024, the scheme becomes
> > more restricted with all diesel vehicles set to be banned from
> > entering and only vehicles displaying Crit'Air E or 1 vignettes being
> > permitted. A zero-emissons zone is planned for 2030."
> >
> > Even my 2016 S1000XR only gets a 2, at best.
> >
> the phasing out of level 2 access in 2024 only applies to Paris I believe..

Yeah, I snipped that bit, but the ULEZ is in London, so should be comparable with Paris.

On Friday, 4 August 2023 at 10:29:17 UTC+1, ogden wrote:
> Pete Fisher wrote:
> > Hog wrote:
> > > Pete Fisher wrote:
> > >> BTW, you do realise that the ULEZ is far more about levels of NOx and
> > >> PM2.5s than CO2 ? Doesn't change the thrust of your argument.
> > >
> > > Yes, but those are reduced commensurately with 80mpg+ vehicles, that weight 500kg less than an EV.
> > > But I don't think ULEZ is really about NOx...
> >
> > Not now, so much. I agree. Infrastructure for road pricing.
> So what though?

Inevitable, I agree. What could replace VED once pretty much everything is zero otherwise?

On 03/08/2023 01:14, RustyHinge wrote:
> On 02/08/2023 10:18, siwilson wrote:
>> On 29/07/2023 07:03, Pete Fisher wrote:
>>> On 28/07/2023 17:25, crn@nospam.com wrote:
>>>> Pete Fisher <peter@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Some are also covid deniers and 5G nuts. Some are convinced that the
>>>>> gummint should be forced to ensure a supply of E0 petrol.
>>>>
>>>> Plenty available if you know where to ask.
>>>> WARTER aviation UL91 or 100LL. www.aaoil.co.uk
>>>> Availble for delivery in 55 and 195 litre drums.
>>>
>>>
>>> Indeed, but the hardliners want at least some petrol stations to
>>> stock E0.  Not going to happen.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I wish they would though. I think it's a reasonable request. I think
>> there's listtle evidence that ethanol is "green". It's not just fuel
>> lines. Plastic/fibreglass tanks, crank seals etc. as well. Many places
>> sell stuff that claims to be ethanol proof and it subsequently turns
>> out not to be.
>>
>> I've ended up making my own. Which ends up being another pollution
>> problem because you end up with a surplus ethanol/water mix which
>> ain't simple to dispose.
>>
> <gulp>

That's a blinder of a suggestion!

--
Bruce Horrocks
FJR1300AS

On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 21:06:44 -0000 (UTC), Mark Olson
<olsonm@tiny.invalid> wrote:

>I seem to remember there was a time in the 70s when everyone was excited
>about flywheel energy storage for recovering braking energy. It has the
>advantage of being able to "charge" and "discharge" at high rates, but
>presumably would require a gimbaled mount to avoid comedy incidents while
>cornering, so consumes a lot of space vs. the amount of energy stored.
>
>Yep - here it is, I remember this issue, my dad was a subscriber.
>
>https://www.ebay.com/itm/192154728646

Interesting flywheel, according to the picture. Some sort of staged
increase in mass, maybe?

>One I don't remember, but a bus this time:
>
>https://www.ebay.com/itm/304988967753

I'm pretty sure flywheel buses were a thing somewhere on the
Continent.

Also, fltwheel engines (maybe shunters) on rail tracks, where sudden
changes of pitch or roll would be unlikely. Maybe in mines or other
places where sparks etc. would be Bad News.

--

-Pip

On 04/08/2023 10:29, ogden wrote:
> Pete Fisher wrote:
>> Hog wrote:
>>> Pete Fisher wrote:
>>>> BTW, you do realise that the ULEZ is far more about levels of NOx and
>>>> PM2.5s than CO2 ? Doesn't change the thrust of your argument.
>>>
>>> Yes, but those are reduced commensurately with 80mpg+ vehicles, that weight 500kg less than an EV.
>>> But I don't think ULEZ is really about NOx...
>>
>> Not now, so much. I agree. Infrastructure for road pricing.
>
> So what though?
>
> I can understand privacy concerns about movement being tracked, but that's halfway there already. But tolling? We already effectively that in the form of fuel duty. With the shift away from IC engines, that becomes less effective. So, privacy issues aside, why not replace it with something more direct?

Mostly because the ULEZ cameras only cover London and a few major
cities, and expecting city-centre drivers to make up the shortfall in
fuel excise duty for the whole of the country is a bit steep.

So there would still need to be another solution for the rest of the
country.

>
> As far as emissions are concerned, what's being introduced now is minimal compared to, say, the Crit'Air/LEZ-m restrictions in France:
>
> https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motoring-news/law-change-for-uk-drivers-in-french-cities/
> "From July 2023, more stringent rules have been introduced in the ZCR, meaning that only vehicles displaying Crit’Air vignettes E, 1 or 2 are allowed to enter the city between 0800 and 2000, Monday to Friday. From January 2024, the scheme becomes more restricted with all diesel vehicles set to be banned from entering and only vehicles displaying Crit'Air E or 1 vignettes being permitted. A zero-emissons zone is planned for 2030."
>
> Even my 2016 S1000XR only gets a 2, at best.

--
Bruce Horrocks
FJR1300AS

On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 16:58:34 +0100, Pete Fisher
<peter@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 03/08/2023 13:16, Hog wrote:
>> But I don't think ULEZ is really about NOx...
>
>Not now, so much. I agree. Infrastructure for road pricing.

Understandable: EV emissions being minimal at point of use would make
ULEZ kind of pointless.

*If* we were to be charged for use only, well, as an owner of three
taxable road-going vehicles....

Of course, it would be an addition, not a replacement for road tax,
VED or whatever they call it these days.

--

-Pip

On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 07:30:36 -0700 (PDT), "degr...@gmail.com"
<degrees72@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, 4 August 2023 at 10:29:17 UTC+1, ogden wrote:
>> Pete Fisher wrote:
>> > Hog wrote:
>> > > Pete Fisher wrote:
>> > >> BTW, you do realise that the ULEZ is far more about levels of NOx and
>> > >> PM2.5s than CO2 ? Doesn't change the thrust of your argument.
>> > >
>> > > Yes, but those are reduced commensurately with 80mpg+ vehicles, that weight 500kg less than an EV.
>> > > But I don't think ULEZ is really about NOx...
>> >
>> > Not now, so much. I agree. Infrastructure for road pricing.
>> So what though?
>
>Inevitable, I agree. What could replace VED once pretty much everything is zero otherwise?

No reason not to start taxing currently zero-rated vehicles. As well.

--

-Pip

On 04/08/2023 21:22, Pipl wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 21:06:44 -0000 (UTC), Mark Olson
> <olsonm@tiny.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I seem to remember there was a time in the 70s when everyone was excited
>> about flywheel energy storage for recovering braking energy. It has the
>> advantage of being able to "charge" and "discharge" at high rates, but
>> presumably would require a gimbaled mount to avoid comedy incidents while
>> cornering, so consumes a lot of space vs. the amount of energy stored.
>>
>> Yep - here it is, I remember this issue, my dad was a subscriber.
>>
>> https://www.ebay.com/itm/192154728646
>
> Interesting flywheel, according to the picture. Some sort of staged
> increase in mass, maybe?
>
>
>> One I don't remember, but a bus this time:
>>
>> https://www.ebay.com/itm/304988967753
>
> I'm pretty sure flywheel buses were a thing somewhere on the
> Continent.
>
> Also, fltwheel engines (maybe shunters) on rail tracks, where sudden
> changes of pitch or roll would be unlikely. Maybe in mines or other
> places where sparks etc. would be Bad News.

One of my ex's dad was working on a thing for IN stations that was
supposed to capture the braking power off a train somehow and store it.
It was theorised that it could be used to deliver the stored power
back to the train to help it accelerate back out of the station.
No clue what happened with it, composite wheels to put all the
mass on the rim of the flywheel etc.

cat <cat@where.here> wrote:
> On 04/08/2023 21:22, Pipl wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 21:06:44 -0000 (UTC), Mark Olson
>> <olsonm@tiny.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> I seem to remember there was a time in the 70s when everyone was excited
>>> about flywheel energy storage for recovering braking energy. It has the
>>> advantage of being able to "charge" and "discharge" at high rates, but
>>> presumably would require a gimbaled mount to avoid comedy incidents while
>>> cornering, so consumes a lot of space vs. the amount of energy stored.
>>>
>>> Yep - here it is, I remember this issue, my dad was a subscriber.
>>>
>>> https://www.ebay.com/itm/192154728646
>>
>> Interesting flywheel, according to the picture. Some sort of staged
>> increase in mass, maybe?
>>
>>
>>> One I don't remember, but a bus this time:
>>>
>>> https://www.ebay.com/itm/304988967753
>>
>> I'm pretty sure flywheel buses were a thing somewhere on the
>> Continent.
>>
>> Also, fltwheel engines (maybe shunters) on rail tracks, where sudden
>> changes of pitch or roll would be unlikely. Maybe in mines or other
>> places where sparks etc. would be Bad News.
>
> One of my ex's dad was working on a thing for IN stations that was
> supposed to capture the braking power off a train somehow and store it.
> It was theorised that it could be used to deliver the stored power
> back to the train to help it accelerate back out of the station.
> No clue what happened with it, composite wheels to put all the
> mass on the rim of the flywheel etc.

I remember reading about a flywheel energy storage system for homes,
where the rotating unit was buried underground. It was made from composite
material, perhaps carbon fiber. They tested it to destruction and since
it was situated underground it was deemed to be safe enough, as when it
failed it tended to resemble nothing so much as candy floss ...

I just plugged a few numbers into this calculator:

https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/flywheel-energy-storage

and it seems that in order to have anything close to the energy stored
in a typical home battery system, a flywheel's going to have to be pretty
big/heavy or spin pretty fast or both.

--
FJR1300A, GL1000, KLR650A6F, EX250J9A, DR200SE, Vespa Ciao

On 04/08/2023 20:40, Bruce Horrocks wrote:
> On 03/08/2023 01:14, RustyHinge wrote:
>> On 02/08/2023 10:18, siwilson wrote:
>>> On 29/07/2023 07:03, Pete Fisher wrote:
>>>> On 28/07/2023 17:25, crn@nospam.com wrote:
>>>>> Pete Fisher <peter@ps-fisher.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some are also covid deniers and 5G nuts. Some are convinced that the
>>>>>> gummint should be forced to ensure a supply of E0 petrol.
>>>>>
>>>>> Plenty available if you know where to ask.
>>>>> WARTER aviation UL91 or 100LL. www.aaoil.co.uk
>>>>> Availble for delivery in 55 and 195 litre drums.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, but the hardliners want at least some petrol stations to
>>>> stock E0.  Not going to happen.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I wish they would though. I think it's a reasonable request. I think
>>> there's listtle evidence that ethanol is "green". It's not just fuel
>>> lines. Plastic/fibreglass tanks, crank seals etc. as well. Many
>>> places sell stuff that claims to be ethanol proof and it subsequently
>>> turns out not to be.
>>>
>>> I've ended up making my own. Which ends up being another pollution
>>> problem because you end up with a surplus ethanol/water mix which
>>> ain't simple to dispose.
>>>
>> <gulp>
>
> That's a blinder of a suggestion!
>
That's a methanol/water mix. Or classically, methanol/cheap wine.

--
Rusty Hinge
To err is human. To really foul things up requires a computer and the BOFH.

On 04/08/2023 21:26, Pipl wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 07:30:36 -0700 (PDT), "degr...@gmail.com"
> <degrees72@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, 4 August 2023 at 10:29:17 UTC+1, ogden wrote:
>>> Pete Fisher wrote:
>>>> Hog wrote:
>>>>> Pete Fisher wrote:
>>>>>> BTW, you do realise that the ULEZ is far more about levels of NOx and
>>>>>> PM2.5s than CO2 ? Doesn't change the thrust of your argument.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but those are reduced commensurately with 80mpg+ vehicles, that weight 500kg less than an EV.
>>>>> But I don't think ULEZ is really about NOx...
>>>>
>>>> Not now, so much. I agree. Infrastructure for road pricing.
>>> So what though?
>>
>> Inevitable, I agree. What could replace VED once pretty much everything is zero otherwise?
>
> No reason not to start taxing currently zero-rated vehicles. As well.
>
None whatsoever once the zero rate is no longer an incentive as all new
passenger car registrations are EV. I was pleased to find the Mini is
only £35.

Still think all the cameras and gubbins for the ULEZ is forward planning
for road pricing.

--
Moto Morini 2C/375
Gilera 175 Sport, Husqvarna 401 Svartpilen
Honda CB250RS (Not Waynetta!)
"Do not adjust your mind, there is a fault in the reality"

On 05/08/2023 07:11, Pete Fisher wrote:
> On 04/08/2023 21:26, Pipl wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 07:30:36 -0700 (PDT), "degr...@gmail.com"
>> <degrees72@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, 4 August 2023 at 10:29:17 UTC+1, ogden wrote:
>>>> Pete Fisher wrote:
>>>>> Hog wrote:
>>>>>> Pete Fisher wrote:
>>>>>>> BTW, you do realise that the ULEZ is far more about levels of NOx
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> PM2.5s than CO2 ? Doesn't change the thrust of your argument.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, but those are reduced commensurately with 80mpg+ vehicles,
>>>>>> that weight 500kg less than an EV.
>>>>>> But I don't think ULEZ is really about NOx...
>>>>>
>>>>> Not now, so much. I agree. Infrastructure for road pricing.
>>>> So what though?
>>>
>>> Inevitable, I agree. What could replace VED once pretty much
>>> everything is zero otherwise?
>>
>> No reason not to start taxing currently zero-rated vehicles. As well.
>>
> None whatsoever once the zero rate is no longer an incentive as all new
> passenger car registrations are EV. I was pleased to find the Mini is
> only £35.
>
> Still think all the cameras and gubbins for the ULEZ is forward planning
> for road pricing.
>
>

Maybe it is something we have to accept?
many years ago when in Chile it was accepted on the Santiago ring road.
As you drive/ride along signs on bridges tell you what it just cost you.
If you have the auto tag then happy days. If not you had 48 hrs to pay
for 1 full days use....

It was fine on UK registered bikes, but I had to be carefull on the Funduro.

--
Bruce Porter
"The internet is a huge and diverse community but mainly friendly"
http://ytc1.blogspot.co.uk/
There *is* an alternative! http://www.openoffice.org/

On 04/08/2023 21:22, Bruce Horrocks wrote:
> On 04/08/2023 10:29, ogden wrote:
>> Pete Fisher wrote:
>>> Hog wrote:
>>>> Pete Fisher wrote:
>>>>> BTW, you do realise that the ULEZ is far more about levels of NOx and
>>>>> PM2.5s than CO2 ? Doesn't change the thrust of your argument.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but those are reduced commensurately with 80mpg+ vehicles, that
>>>> weight 500kg less than an EV.
>>>> But I don't think ULEZ is really about NOx...
>>>
>>> Not now, so much. I agree. Infrastructure for road pricing.
>>
>> So what though?
>>
>> I can understand privacy concerns about movement being tracked, but
>> that's halfway there already. But tolling? We already effectively that
>> in the form of fuel duty. With the shift away from IC engines, that
>> becomes less effective. So, privacy issues aside, why not replace it
>> with something more direct?
>
> Mostly because the ULEZ cameras only cover London and a few major
> cities, and expecting city-centre drivers to make up the shortfall in
> fuel excise duty for the whole of the country is a bit steep.
>
> So there would still need to be another solution for the rest of the
> country.
>
>
Hmmm, do you thnk that they are adding extra kit to "smart" motorways
perhaps?

--
Bruce Porter
"The internet is a huge and diverse community but mainly friendly"
http://ytc1.blogspot.co.uk/
There *is* an alternative! http://www.openoffice.org/

YTC#1 <bdp@ytc1-spambin.co.uk> wrote in
news:ual5ro$1mqbl$2@dont-email.me:

>
>
> On 04/08/2023 21:22, Bruce Horrocks wrote:
>> On 04/08/2023 10:29, ogden wrote:
>>> Pete Fisher wrote:
>>>> Hog wrote:
>>>>> Pete Fisher wrote:
>>>>>> BTW, you do realise that the ULEZ is far more about levels of NOx
>>>>>> and PM2.5s than CO2 ? Doesn't change the thrust of your argument.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but those are reduced commensurately with 80mpg+ vehicles,
>>>>> that weight 500kg less than an EV.
>>>>> But I don't think ULEZ is really about NOx...
>>>>
>>>> Not now, so much. I agree. Infrastructure for road pricing.
>>>
>>> So what though?
>>>
>>> I can understand privacy concerns about movement being tracked, but
>>> that's halfway there already. But tolling? We already effectively
>>> that in the form of fuel duty. With the shift away from IC engines,
>>> that becomes less effective. So, privacy issues aside, why not
>>> replace it with something more direct?
>>
>> Mostly because the ULEZ cameras only cover London and a few major
>> cities, and expecting city-centre drivers to make up the shortfall in
>> fuel excise duty for the whole of the country is a bit steep.
>>
>> So there would still need to be another solution for the rest of the
>> country.
>>
>>
> Hmmm, do you thnk that they are adding extra kit to "smart" motorways
> perhaps?
>
>

and the average speed cameras using ANPR that infest many parts of the
country, even in rural parts in the Dales. Then there are the CCTV
cameras everywhere if we are to believe all those police procedural TV
shows

On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 22:17:18 -0000 (UTC), Mark Olson
<olsonm@tiny.invalid> wrote:

>I just plugged a few numbers into this calculator:
>
>https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/flywheel-energy-storage
>
>and it seems that in order to have anything close to the energy stored
>in a typical home battery system, a flywheel's going to have to be pretty
>big/heavy or spin pretty fast or both.

For knetic energy, light, high tensile strength and fast is most
efficient, if not the cheapest. They usually have to run in a vacuum
with magnetic bearings - and be nonconductive, to minimise eddy
currents from stray magnetic fields.

--

-Pip

On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 22:17:45 +0100, cat <cat@where.here> wrote:

>On 04/08/2023 21:22, Pipl wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Aug 2023 21:06:44 -0000 (UTC), Mark Olson
>> <olsonm@tiny.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> I seem to remember there was a time in the 70s when everyone was excited
>>> about flywheel energy storage for recovering braking energy. It has the
>>> advantage of being able to "charge" and "discharge" at high rates, but
>>> presumably would require a gimbaled mount to avoid comedy incidents while
>>> cornering, so consumes a lot of space vs. the amount of energy stored.
>>>
>>> Yep - here it is, I remember this issue, my dad was a subscriber.
>>>
>>> https://www.ebay.com/itm/192154728646
>>
>> Interesting flywheel, according to the picture. Some sort of staged
>> increase in mass, maybe?
>>
>>
>>> One I don't remember, but a bus this time:
>>>
>>> https://www.ebay.com/itm/304988967753
>>
>> I'm pretty sure flywheel buses were a thing somewhere on the
>> Continent.
>>
>> Also, fltwheel engines (maybe shunters) on rail tracks, where sudden
>> changes of pitch or roll would be unlikely. Maybe in mines or other
>> places where sparks etc. would be Bad News.
>
>One of my ex's dad was working on a thing for IN stations that was
>supposed to capture the braking power off a train somehow and store it.

Nice. Though apparently the London Underground had a far simpler
system: the tracks slope up to a station and down away, thus storing
potential energy whein it's entering the station and regaining it as
the train rolls away. Also moving the stations closer to the surface
as a bonus.

--

-Pip

On 04/08/2023 21:22, Pipl wrote:

> I'm pretty sure flywheel buses were a thing somewhere on the
> Continent.
>
> Also, fltwheel engines (maybe shunters) on rail tracks, where sudden
> changes of pitch or roll would be unlikely. Maybe in mines or other
> places where sparks etc. would be Bad News.

There is a UK train that is used everyday with flywheel energy use.
It runs between Stourbridge and stourbridge Junction, around 1.5 miles.
It's out every day. I think there are 2 of them, been there for 17 years
or so now, and, generally, quite reliable.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parry_People_Movers>

--
Remove the '+' and replace with 'plus' to reply by email

On 05/08/2023 12:08, wessie wrote:
> YTC#1 <bdp@ytc1-spambin.co.uk> wrote in
> news:ual5ro$1mqbl$2@dont-email.me:
>
>>
>>
>> On 04/08/2023 21:22, Bruce Horrocks wrote:
>>> On 04/08/2023 10:29, ogden wrote:
>>>> Pete Fisher wrote:
>>>>> Hog wrote:
>>>>>> Pete Fisher wrote:
>>>>>>> BTW, you do realise that the ULEZ is far more about levels of NOx
>>>>>>> and PM2.5s than CO2 ? Doesn't change the thrust of your argument.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, but those are reduced commensurately with 80mpg+ vehicles,
>>>>>> that weight 500kg less than an EV.
>>>>>> But I don't think ULEZ is really about NOx...
>>>>>
>>>>> Not now, so much. I agree. Infrastructure for road pricing.
>>>>
>>>> So what though?
>>>>
>>>> I can understand privacy concerns about movement being tracked, but
>>>> that's halfway there already. But tolling? We already effectively
>>>> that in the form of fuel duty. With the shift away from IC engines,
>>>> that becomes less effective. So, privacy issues aside, why not
>>>> replace it with something more direct?
>>>
>>> Mostly because the ULEZ cameras only cover London and a few major
>>> cities, and expecting city-centre drivers to make up the shortfall in
>>> fuel excise duty for the whole of the country is a bit steep.
>>>
>>> So there would still need to be another solution for the rest of the
>>> country.
>>>
>>>
>> Hmmm, do you thnk that they are adding extra kit to "smart" motorways
>> perhaps?
>>
>>
>
> and the average speed cameras using ANPR that infest many parts of the
> country, even in rural parts in the Dales. Then there are the CCTV
> cameras everywhere if we are to believe all those police procedural TV
> shows

Everywhere except where stuff [1] gets stolen from.

[1] Not still bitter about the Peg getting stolen 2 years ok ......

--
Bruce Porter
"The internet is a huge and diverse community but mainly friendly"
http://ytc1.blogspot.co.uk/
There *is* an alternative! http://www.openoffice.org/

In article <kmnqci1pfbmv251oe0m7rmibm8r3bc37ep@4ax.com>, Pipl says...
>
> On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 07:30:36 -0700 (PDT), "degr...@gmail.com"
> <degrees72@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, 4 August 2023 at 10:29:17 UTC+1, ogden wrote:
> >> Pete Fisher wrote:
> >> > Hog wrote:
> >> > > Pete Fisher wrote:
> >> > >> BTW, you do realise that the ULEZ is far more about levels of NOx and
> >> > >> PM2.5s than CO2 ? Doesn't change the thrust of your argument.
> >> > >
> >> > > Yes, but those are reduced commensurately with 80mpg+ vehicles, that weight 500kg less than an EV.
> >> > > But I don't think ULEZ is really about NOx...
> >> >
> >> > Not now, so much. I agree. Infrastructure for road pricing.
> >> So what though?
> >
> >Inevitable, I agree. What could replace VED once pretty much everything is zero otherwise?
>
> No reason not to start taxing currently zero-rated vehicles. As well.

My car is £20 a year, I keep expecting that to rise but it hasn't as yet.

On Sat, 05 Aug 2023 19:31:14 +0100, Pipl <pluscher@live.co.uk> wrote:

>On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 22:17:45 +0100, cat <cat@where.here> wrote:

>>One of my ex's dad was working on a thing for IN stations that was
>>supposed to capture the braking power off a train somehow and store it.
>
>Nice. Though apparently the London Underground had a far simpler
>system: the tracks slope up to a station and down away, thus storing
>potential energy whein it's entering the station and regaining it as
>the train rolls away. Also moving the stations closer to the surface
>as a bonus.

IIRC the curve is a catenary.

--
Colin Irvine
FJR1300A

Colin Irvine wrote:

> Pipl wrote:
>
>> the London Underground had a far simpler system: the tracks slope
>> up to a station and down away
>
> IIRC the curve is a catenary.

Do modern day tunnel boring machines with their laser guidance, have a
"soggy string emulation" mode, as well as "dead straight"?