[Michael A. Terrell]

[1] Funny how I always dislike guys named Larry. We have a friend who
used to be Larry, nice guy, but last year he changed his name to
Jerome.

So, you don't like Larry the cable guy? I think that is Dimbulb's
day job.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[John Larkin]

Feynman's point was that they were expected to run under major stress for
a couple of minutes, then do it over again on the next launch, and so on.
He considered the lifetime predictions to be flawed.

Yeah, he was pretty smart. And the Shuttle was pretty dumb.

John

 

[Glen Walpert]

Feynman's point was that they were expected to run under major stress for
a couple of minutes, then do it over again on the next launch, and so on.
He considered the lifetime predictions to be flawed.

He might have been right about the projections, although lifetime
projections are normally correlated against test data before being
accepted as meaningful. I never heard of any problems with the
oxidizer turbopumps failing in flight, have there been failures?

My first engineering job was seal designer at Stein Seal Co. where I
did part of the design of the shaft seals for a large Rocketdyne
oxidizer turbopump around 1979 or so. One seal kept liquid oxygen out
of the bearings, and the other kept a hot hydrogen and steam gas
mixture out of the same bearings, with several inches between the two.
Overall construction is similar to other turbopumps like automotive
turbochargers, with a turbine on one end of the shaft and a pump on
the other, seals and bearings in between. Neither fluid is what I
would call "nasty" in this case; neither corrosive nor erosive. (We
also did seals for really nasty fluids.) There is quite a bit of
thermal expansion and contraction to be accomodated on startup, but
not that much different from the bearings and seals used on jet
engines which also have to accomodate a lot of slop for thermal
expansion. A somewhat complicated design, but are they really "big
problems"?

 

[John Larkin]

He might have been right about the projections, although lifetime
projections are normally correlated against test data before being
accepted as meaningful. I never heard of any problems with the
oxidizer turbopumps failing in flight, have there been failures?

Not on a shuttle. I've heard of some other rockets failing because of
feed pump problems.

Feedwater pumps are a big deal in steam plants.

John

 

[The Ghost In The Machine]

In sci.physics, Eeyore
<[email protected]>
wrote

Monopropellant ? Are you planing on using it's 'fizz' to provide rocket style
propulsion ?

More likely a catalyst in a piston affair to explosively
decompose it. Dunno how well that will work admittedly,
specially since impurities in the tank might cause it to
explosively decompose in the *tank*. However, given the
fuel source -- which is of course a major issue in itself
-- it might work.

Graham

 

[Glen Walpert]

Not on a shuttle. I've heard of some other rockets failing because of
feed pump problems.

Those must have been the ones using Sealol face seals . Early
pumps were designed with methods now considered primitive.
Stress/strain and vibration modal analysis of the startup phase is
computationally intense, it was a bit tough in the days of the slide
rule, when some of the early pumps were designed. Newer pumps
including the shuttle pumps benefited from state of the art finite
element analysis.

Feedwater pumps are a big deal in steam plants.

Yep, those are some big pumps with a lot of parts subject to
corrosion, erosion and wear. Rather different tradeoffs from the
rocket feed pumps. I have done some work on these too, including the
defunct Clinch River Fast Breeder Reactor primary sodium pump seal.
Hot liquid sodium qualifies as a fairly nasty fluid - but only if it
leaks .

 

[John Larkin]

Those must have been the ones using Sealol face seals . Early
pumps were designed with methods now considered primitive.
Stress/strain and vibration modal analysis of the startup phase is
computationally intense, it was a bit tough in the days of the slide
rule, when some of the early pumps were designed. Newer pumps
including the shuttle pumps benefited from state of the art finite
element analysis.


Yep, those are some big pumps with a lot of parts subject to
corrosion, erosion and wear. Rather different tradeoffs from the
rocket feed pumps. I have done some work on these too, including the
defunct Clinch River Fast Breeder Reactor primary sodium pump seal.
Hot liquid sodium qualifies as a fairly nasty fluid - but only if it
leaks .

Speaking of nasty, in the 50's roughly, some power plants were built
using mercury as the working fluid.

John

 

[[email protected]]

I've known a few people who were very good at making money, in the
sense of making money for its own sake, without actually creating
anything.

Sounds like you have issues about money. Its impossible to make money
and not create value. That's what it means to make money. If you end
up with a lot of money in your pocket and have not created value, then
you are not a business person, you are a crook. That's the genius of
free-markets. All the exchanges are voluntary, so wealth is created
necessarily.

They seemed to mostly do it for sport, to be a winner and to
flaunt it.

Not true. People who are good at making money take it seriously and
ask themselves serious questions like where's the value?

As Larry Ellison [1] says, it's not enough that I win,
everybody else has to lose.

It appears you have a reference, but you don't really. I think your
belief reflects more your issues with money than reality about those
who make money.

Its been my experience that folks like Larry Ellison are more into win
win situations. He was selling one if old yachts down in Florida last
October and I did not get the impression that he was any different
than any other successful person in this regard. He's very concerned
about making a 'good' deal - meaning one where everyone is ahead at
the end of the day.

These guys, like many politicians, seem to often be sexual atheletes

Again you are projecting. You figure they have more wealth than you
so they also have more sexual opportunity than you. haha.. Fact is,
folks who make a lot of money spend time doing just that leaving less
time for play.

too, again in the sense of scoring and winning.

Not so. More a sense of creating.

After realizing thet
they have mostly conquered half of the population, they often go after
the other half.

Again not so.

I knew one guy like this that made a huge fortune and
had literally thousands of sexual partners.

Sure we all do - they're called sports figures and rock stars. These
folks are atypical of most solid business sorts.

He never read an entire
book in his life,

Yet one of the success habits of highly successful people is a regular
reading regimen. I think you are confused between gangsters, public
figures and business folk. You may also be confused about being Rich
and being Wealthy. Oprah is Rich. Bill Gates is Wealthy. If Bill
Gates woke up one morning and found that he had as much money as
Oprah, he'd jump out of a window.

and couldn't sit through a movie; there was nothing
in it for him.

You are taking a questionable anecdotal experience you are claiming
happened and applying it universally to all people inappropriately.

We're mainly engineers here, not overly concerned about money. We
mostly like to build things.

I'm an engineer and I likely have built more stuff and better stuff
than you. I take pride in the fact that I have created substantial
wealth by creating products of substantial value.

John

[1] Funny how I always dislike guys named Larry. We have a friend who
used to be Larry, nice guy, but last year he changed his name to
Jerome.- Hide quoted text -

The issues you have with money bear no relation to those who actually
have created vast fortunes and true wealth. This is to be
distinguised from folks who are temporarily rich due to some factor
other than true wealth creation.

 

[John Larkin]

Sounds like you have issues about money. Its impossible to make money
and not create value.

Absurd. You can steal it from retired old ladies. You can sell
dangerous, useless crap. You can file class-action lawsuits, with
hired/bogus victims, make megabucks, and not help the class in any
useful way. You can sell speed and heroin and kill people. You can
insert yourself between buyers and sellers and skim the action without
contributing anything. You can take bribes and throw contracts and
create huge negative value. You can invent bogus or useless
technology, sell lots of 3F stock, live high, waste it all. You can
manufacture cigarettes. The list goes on.

That's what it means to make money. If you end
up with a lot of money in your pocket and have not created value, then
you are not a business person, you are a crook. That's the genius of
free-markets. All the exchanges are voluntary, so wealth is created
necessarily.


Not true. People who are good at making money take it seriously and
ask themselves serious questions like where's the value?

You must know some different people from the ones I know.

As Larry Ellison [1] says, it's not enough that I win,
everybody else has to lose.

It appears you have a reference, but you don't really. I think your
belief reflects more your issues with money than reality about those
who make money.

See above.

Its been my experience that folks like Larry Ellison are more into win
win situations. He was selling one if old yachts down in Florida last
October and I did not get the impression that he was any different
than any other successful person in this regard. He's very concerned
about making a 'good' deal - meaning one where everyone is ahead at
the end of the day.


Again you are projecting. You figure they have more wealth than you
so they also have more sexual opportunity than you. haha.. Fact is,
folks who make a lot of money spend time doing just that leaving less
time for play.

My comment wasn't a generalization. It was based on real people. Not
always, of course. I'm certainly not jealous of promiscuous people; I
find it sort of sad, actually.

Not so. More a sense of creating.


Again not so.

See above.

Sure we all do - they're called sports figures and rock stars. These
folks are atypical of most solid business sorts.


Yet one of the success habits of highly successful people is a regular
reading regimen. I think you are confused between gangsters, public
figures and business folk. You may also be confused about being Rich
and being Wealthy. Oprah is Rich. Bill Gates is Wealthy. If Bill
Gates woke up one morning and found that he had as much money as
Oprah, he'd jump out of a window.

Bill has a lot of stock. I suspect that Oprah has a lot of stock.
Unless she keeps roughly a billion dollars in cash under her matress.

You are taking a questionable anecdotal experience you are claiming
happened and applying it universally to all people inappropriately.

It happened. I've known a couple of rich people like this, people who
only wanted to make a lot of money, any way that worked. I never
mentioned "all people."

I'm an engineer and I likely have built more stuff and better stuff
than you.

You can't know that.

I take pride in the fact that I have created substantial
wealth by creating products of substantial value.

John

[1] Funny how I always dislike guys named Larry. We have a friend who
used to be Larry, nice guy, but last year he changed his name to
Jerome.- Hide quoted text -

The issues you have with money bear no relation to those who actually
have created vast fortunes and true wealth. This is to be
distinguised from folks who are temporarily rich due to some factor
other than true wealth creation.

I have no issues with money or with wealth, except that I acknowledge
both to be overhead that enables my being able to do good engineering;
but they are a pita nonetheless.

John

 

[Rich Grise]

Speaking of nasty, in the 50's roughly, some power plants were built
using mercury as the working fluid.

Once, in one of the engineering buildings at U of MN, there was sort
of a display - some guy had built an MHD device, which used about
a liter of mercury. This was in 1968 or so, before they made mercury
all toxic and stuff. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

Sounds like you have issues about money. Its impossible to make money and
not create value. That's what it means to make money. If you end up with
a lot of money in your pocket and have not created value, then you are not
a business person, you are a crook.

Either that or a lucky gambler. Ever heard of the "stock market"?

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Richard Henry]

Sounds like you have issues about money. Its impossible to make money
and not create value. That's what it means to make money.

Have you never heard of Kevin Trudeau?

If you end
up with a lot of money in your pocket and have not created value, then
you are not a business person, you are a crook.

Oh, never mind, you have heard of him.

 

[Fred Abse]

I have done some work on these too, including the
defunct Clinch River Fast Breeder Reactor primary sodium pump seal.
Hot liquid sodium qualifies as a fairly nasty fluid - but only if it
leaks .

Hot UF6 is pretty nasty, too. I read somewhere a long time ago that they
started building the Oak Ridge diffusion plant without any idea how to
make pump seals that would stand the stuff. Some guy called, IIRC, Judson
Swearingen came up with the goods just in time. D'you happen to know if
how it was done ever got declassified?

 

[Fred Abse]

He might have been right about the projections, although lifetime
projections are normally correlated against test data before being
accepted as meaningful. I never heard of any problems with the
oxidizer turbopumps failing in flight, have there been failures?

Not outright failures in service, but "cracks have been found in the
turbine blades of the high pressure oxygen turbopump". He was talking
about the inherent deficiencies of top-down design vis-a-vis the
inaccessibility of certain critical parts.

It's interesting reading, lacking none of Feynman's customary clarity and
incisiveness, despite the fact that, by this time, he was dying, and knew
it.

Available at:

http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v2appf.htm

My first engineering job was seal designer at Stein Seal Co. where I did
part of the design of the shaft seals for a large Rocketdyne oxidizer
turbopump around 1979 or so. One seal kept liquid oxygen out of the
bearings, and the other kept a hot hydrogen and steam gas mixture out of
the same bearings, with several inches between the two. Overall
construction is similar to other turbopumps like automotive
turbochargers, with a turbine on one end of the shaft and a pump on the
other, seals and bearings in between. Neither fluid is what I would
call "nasty" in this case; neither corrosive nor erosive. (We also did
seals for really nasty fluids.) There is quite a bit of thermal
expansion and contraction to be accomodated on startup, but not that
much different from the bearings and seals used on jet engines which
also have to accomodate a lot of slop for thermal expansion. A somewhat
complicated design, but are they really "big problems"?

Those sound very like them.

 

[[email protected]]

Absurd. You can steal it from retired old ladies.

That's not making money that stealing money.

You can sell
dangerous, useless crap.

That's not making money that fraud.

You can file class-action lawsuits, with
hired/bogus victims, make megabucks,

That's not making money, that is prosecuting fraudulent lawsuits.

and not help the class in any
useful way.

That's defrauding the court.

There are 9.5 million millionaires in the world that control $39.2
Trillion - how many of these and how much of this total do you think
is accounted for by the list of procedures you just created?

You can sell speed and heroin and kill people.

Well if the speed and heroin are substandard and poisons, then this
again is fraud.

You can
insert yourself between buyers and sellers and skim the action without
contributing anything.

You obviously know nothing about the retail function. If this person
isn't defrauding his buyers or sellers then he's performing a useful
service. If he is defrauding people, the market will circumvent
him.

Look its a classic example in the economics text books. Three guys
live in a valley, one is a lumberjack who because he has an interest
in baseball makes baseball bats in his spare time. Another is a pig
farmer and makes gloves in his spare time Another a cattleperson and
cotton farmer makes balls in his spare time. At the end of their
season there is a festival. Each has 3 balls 3 bats and 3 gloves.
They take the balls bats and gloves to market. And over drinks and
dance they trade a ball for a bat, a bat for a glove and so on, so
that each has 1 ball 1 bat and 1 glove.

Question: Are the three fellows richer after the transaction than
before?

Answer: Obviously, yes, because now they can play ball.

The trades took place irrespective of how much time or material was
put into each item. The value was created even though the total
number of balls bats and gloves in the valley was the same as before
the festival as after. The value was created by the distribution of
the same products. This is called the value of the retail function.
The actual making of the products is called the value of the
manufacturing function.

I'm taking time to explain all this to you because you clearly do not
understand how middlefolk work to create value. Now you do.

..

You can take bribes and throw contracts and
create huge negative value.

And you would be a crook by this process and again wouldn't be MAKING
money, you would be STEALING money, which makes the person engaging in
this activity a criminal subject to prosecution and total loss under
the law.

Again, Merrill Lynch Capgemini 2007 World Wealth Report has determined
that this year there are 9.5 million millionaires who control $39.2
Trillion worth of liquid assets - by far the single largest
collection of money in the world. How many would and how much would
you estimate was accumulated by the activities shown here?

You can invent bogus or useless
technology,

How does this enrich you?

sell lots of 3F stock, live high, waste it all

How does this make money for anyone (except the purveyors of high
living)?

. You can
manufacture cigarettes.

How does this enrich you? They wouldn't be made without buyers. As
it stands those buyers are well informed as to the risk. So, clearly
both engage in a free market to gain mutual benefit. One the dubious
benefit of engaging in an addiction to nicotine.

Similarly automobiles wouldn't exist without buyers, and they kill
more than a select group of folks who use automobiles. They kill the
entire planet. And their danger is under-reported and unappreciated,
largely due to the massive advertising budgets of the car
manufacturers. But they are VOLUNTARY transactions and as such
largely create huge values for those involved. After all, ever been
without a car for any length of time? Cars create huge value.

The list goes on.

And the point of the list is what precisely? It has nothing to do
with my original statement which is you must create wealth in order to
MAKE money. Certainly thieves and ne'er do wells throughout the ages
have STOLEN money in many ways shapes and forms. But they're not
making money, and theives by and large don't account for the massive
accumulation of wealth of the wealthy.

I ask you again, how much of the $39.2 trillion in liquid assets held
by the 9.5 million millionaires was MADE and how much was STOLEN -
using ALL the procedures on your list? How much would you estimate
was stolen (not made as I've defined it?)

That's the real question. Thieves and knaves have always existed and
likely will always exist - but how much of our total accumulated
wealth can be put down to this sort of foolishness?

Name a number - and I will tell you straight out- if your number is
any greater than 0.5% - half a percent - then I would say it is wildly
overestimated. Because that's what it is. The other 99.5% is MADE by
people on CREATE wealth - those people are called businessfolk.

You must know some different people from the ones I know.

Yes. People who are truly wealthy, not those who are posers.

As Larry Ellison [1] says, it's not enough that I win,
everybody else has to lose.

It appears you have a reference, but you don't really. I think your
belief reflects more your issues with money than reality about those
who make money.

See above.

Above? I don't see any references to anything that would confirm you
statements about Larry Elison.

My comment wasn't a generalization. It was based on real people.

Larry Ellison in particular? What was the extent of your
interaction? Did you actually transact business with the man? Or are
you merely projecting your attitudes.

Not
always, of course.

So, you're lying some of time about this?

I'm certainly not jealous of promiscuous people;

Just rich ones?

I
find it sort of sad, actually.

For you or them?

See above.

See what above exactly? You claim to know rich people and then say a
bunch of abusive things about them, and then say something very
specific about Ellison. You have nothing whatever to back any of it
up.

Bill has a lot of stock. I suspect that Oprah has a lot of stock.
Unless she keeps roughly a billion dollars in cash under her matress.

You miss my point. Oprah is an entertainer who sells her time and
attention - much as a top notch physician might sell her time and
attention. Gates has created tremendous value in business and as a
consequence had MADE a lot of money. Oprah's income could disappear
tomorrow if people found her PERSONALLY unacceptable for whatever
reason. Just as OJ was once beloved and now is not due to his
personal behavior. Those who have been highly paid for their services
due to specialized knowledge or their personality are unique, and they
do not account for the bulk of the wealth accumulated in the world.

It happened.

What is this person's net worth right now? What is his income right
now? What is his outflow right now? What is the source of his
worth? the source of his income?

I've known a couple of rich people like this,

How rich? How did they get it? What is their source of income
today? Recall, I said Oprah is rich, but Oprah doesn't MAKE money and
she isn't WEALTHY in the sense that Gates or Buffet are wealthy. So,
in this terminology, is the person you speak of merely rich or truly
wealthy? Are they a beneficiary of luck, (win the lottery, inherit
wealth, get away with otherwise criminal activity, win at gambling,
find favor with the public and exploit it, win a beauty contest, etc.)
or did this person really and truly MAKE money and accumulate
WEALTH? Actors and actresses, media personalities, sports stars, all
make up about 4% of the $39.2 trillion - those who inherit something
like 12%, and those who are lucky (which includes criminals who got
away scott free) less than 1% - the balance of all the accumulated
wealth in the world was CREATED by those who MADE money by CREATING
something of value.

people who
only wanted to make a lot of money, any way that worked. I never
mentioned "all people."

What does this have to do with what I was talking about? YOU have
been saying spiteful things of me and impuning everything I say.
Why? This doesn't change the fact that directly connecting solar
panels to the AC power grid is a way to restrict and limit the use of
solar panels. IT IS FAR BETTER TO MAKE HYDROGEN FROM WATER AND BURN
THAT IN CONVENTIONAL GENERATORS - that is the only way to convert the
world to solar power, eliminate carbon emissions, and make lots of
money very quickly by creating huge amounts of value today.

You can't know that.

I can believe it so it makes it true for me. Prove me wrong. You
have my patent numbers. I also invented the first computer based cash
register. The credit card scanner in the gas pump. A golf ball that
changes colors when you hit it to tell you how to improve your swing.
And these are only the things I've made money with. But I'll stand by
these.

What have you done?

I take pride in the fact that I have created substantial
wealth by creating products of substantial value.

John
[1] Funny how I always dislike guys named Larry. We have a friend who
used to be Larry, nice guy, but last year he changed his name to
Jerome.- Hide quoted text -

The issues you have with money bear no relation to those who actually
have created vast fortunes and true wealth. This is to be
distinguised from folks who are temporarily rich due to some factor
other than true wealth creation.

I have no issues with money or with wealth,

You speak about people you say you have known in such a spiteful and
disparaging way and attribute to them all manner of shortcomings - so
many that you feel sorry for them - you said that. haha.. You
certainly DO have issues with money. Big Time.

except

See and you know it.

that I acknowledge
both to be overhead that enables my being able to do good engineering;
but they are a pita nonetheless.

John- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Whatever... soon you'll be able to say whatever damn fool thing about
me that you want without fear of correction! haha.. I will be
dropping out of sight soon to do more serious work.

 

[[email protected]]

Either that or a lucky gambler. Ever heard of the "stock market"?

Cheers!
Rich

One may be lucky in the stock market certainly, but by far the
greatest amount of wealth is held by those who actually contribute
value.

Here is one descrition of the function of the stock market and its
value;

The stock market is one of the most important sources for companies to
raise money. This allows businesses to go public, or raise additional
capital for expansion. The liquidity that an exchange provides affords
investors the ability to quickly and easily sell securities. This is
an attractive feature of investing in stocks, compared to other less
liquid investments such as real estate.

History has shown that the price of shares and other assets is an
important part of the dynamics of economic activity, and can influence
or be an indicator of social mood. Rising share prices, for instance,
tend to be associated with increased business investment and vice
versa. Share prices also affect the wealth of households and their
consumption. Therefore, central banks tend to keep an eye on the
control and behavior of the stock market and, in general, on the
smooth operation of financial system functions. Financial stability is
the raison d'être of central banks.

Exchanges also act as the clearinghouse for each transaction, meaning
that they collect and deliver the shares, and guarantee payment to the
seller of a security. This eliminates the risk to an individual buyer
or seller that the counterparty could default on the transaction.

The smooth functioning of all these activities facilitates economic
growth in that lower costs and enterprise risks promote the production
of goods and services as well as employment. In this way the financial
system contributes to increased prosperity.

 

[[email protected]]

Have you never heard of Kevin Trudeau?


Oh, never mind, you have heard of him.

Anecdotal reports of notable exceptions to the rule doesn't change the
rule. Given the low rate of capital formation and the high rate of
taxes, if any more than 1/2% of the total profits earned in business
were ill-gotten (and thereby subtracted from the economic engine,
perhaps with a multiplier if the subtraction involved huge destruction
of wealth) then the market would quickly collapse of its own weight.

Consider, the effect of Enron's accounting lies on the market and on
the economy as a whole. It had a huge impact for an extended period
of time. So, can't you see that if more than half a percent of the
wealth earned in the marketplace were ill gotten, that didn't truly
contribute to the creation of wealth generally, the whole system would
collapse.

This is the true cost of crime in places like the former Soviet Union
and other nations that are struggling with crime. Huge amounts of
cash flow through the Columbian economy due to the drug trade, and
flow through Afghanistan for the same reason. But is the Columbian or
Aghani economy a sterling example of wealth formation and progress?
No! They're all cluster fucks mired in poverty and violence.

True wealth comes from another source altogether - one that
understands the distinction between CREATING WEALTH and touching money
that doesn't stay in your hands.
..

 

[Glen Walpert]

Hot UF6 is pretty nasty, too. I read somewhere a long time ago that they
started building the Oak Ridge diffusion plant without any idea how to
make pump seals that would stand the stuff. Some guy called, IIRC, Judson
Swearingen came up with the goods just in time. D'you happen to know if
how it was done ever got declassified?

I don't know anything about that, and don't know if it was ever
declassified, but in general they are not too good about declassifying
that sort of information IME. Obviously the information is out there,
considering the number of enrichment plants in operation today, but
that has not stopped efforts to limit access to detailed info on how
it is done.

The classified info that irks me most is the Navy rules for safe
reactor construction and operation. Admiral Rickover did a pretty
good job creating these rules, judging by the Navy's safety record,
and it is a pity we can't compare "Ricky's rules" to the safety rules
in effect for commercial power plants. If TMI had followed Navy
standard safety practice the accident definitely would not have
happened, at least two of the amazing series of problems leading to
the accident would have been prevented. But those standard practices
are classified, and it is my opinion that much more harm than good is
done by it.

 

[Richard Henry]

I don't know anything about that, and don't know if it was ever
declassified, but in general they are not too good about declassifying
that sort of information IME. Obviously the information is out there,
considering the number of enrichment plants in operation today, but
that has not stopped efforts to limit access to detailed info on how
it is done.

The classified info that irks me most is the Navy rules for safe
reactor construction and operation. Admiral Rickover did a pretty
good job creating these rules, judging by the Navy's safety record,
and it is a pity we can't compare "Ricky's rules" to the safety rules
in effect for commercial power plants. If TMI had followed Navy
standard safety practice the accident definitely would not have
happened, at least two of the amazing series of problems leading to
the accident would have been prevented. But those standard practices
are classified, and it is my opinion that much more harm than good is
done by it.

The Navy has an advantage in enforcing its safety rules. The
operators have an extreme incentive to maintaining safe operation and
safe equipment since they sleep in the plant.

 

[Rock Brentwood]

The main problem with batteries, is just simply people
who don't know how to drive, or know anything about aerodynamics,
Since electric starters where only even invented, orignally,
for people who just can't function without automatic transmissions.

Toyota is coming out with a Lithium-based car in the near future.

I think the first car to ever hit 100 MPH was electric.

There was a news segment done recently on an electric cycle, the
machine gets up to 150 MPH and does 0-60 in 1 second. That's pretty
violent acceleration, on par with fighter jets and rockets.

A look at its operation reminded me of stepper motors.