home battery

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUn]

On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 17:35:43 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:

You are also an absolute idiot about how sex works as well.

You'd like to think so.

I know so. You have never heard the expression "bumping uglies"?

In the missionary position, the male 'pube' most definitely bangs
against the female's upper genital region.

You know... where the previously mentioned 'clit' is located.

You are an absolute daft idiot, at best.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, 1 March 2015 13:38:16 UTC+11, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:

On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 17:35:43 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:

You are also an absolute idiot about how sex works as well.

You'd like to think so.

I know so. You have never heard the expression "bumping uglies"?

Never.

In the missionary position, the male 'pube' most definitely bangs
against the female's upper genital region.

You know... where the previously mentioned 'clit' is located.

Since I do know where the clitoris is located - and you clearly don't - you've just reinforced my case.

http://www.bumc.bu.edu/sexualmedicine/physicianinformation/female-genital-anatomy/

It's below and behind the female pubic symphisis. Bashing the front of the pubic symphisis is a painful waste of time.

> You are an absolute daft idiot, at best.

AlwaysWrong, in vintage form.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUn]

On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 19:13:55 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Sunday, 1 March 2015 13:38:16 UTC+11, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 17:35:43 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:

You are also an absolute idiot about how sex works as well.

You'd like to think so.

I know so. You have never heard the expression "bumping uglies"?

Never.

In the missionary position, the male 'pube' most definitely bangs
against the female's upper genital region.

You know... where the previously mentioned 'clit' is located.

Since I do know where the clitoris is located - and you clearly don't -
you've just reinforced my case.

http://www.bumc.bu.edu/sexualmedicine/physicianinformation/female-
genital-anatomy/

It's below and behind the female pubic symphisis. Bashing the front of
the pubic symphisis is a painful waste of time.

Nobody said anything about bashing anything, you retarded, lying piece
of shit.

You are an absolute daft idiot, at best.

AlwaysWrong, in vintage form.

There is the mons veneris. It is specifically there to protect the
pubic bone during sex. That means that it receives impact events.

It is a known fact that some women like it being impacted during sex and
some do not.

Same with nuts. Can't touch mine right now, but in the throes of sex,
she and my action(s) can slap the piss out of 'em and it doesn't bother me
a bit. Makes me MORE, in fact.

You know less than nothing.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, 1 March 2015 14:26:55 UTC+11, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:

On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 19:13:55 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Sunday, 1 March 2015 13:38:16 UTC+11, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 17:35:43 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:

You are also an absolute idiot about how sex works as well.

You'd like to think so.

I know so. You have never heard the expression "bumping uglies"?

Never.

In the missionary position, the male 'pube' most definitely bangs
against the female's upper genital region.

You know... where the previously mentioned 'clit' is located.

Since I do know where the clitoris is located - and you clearly don't -
you've just reinforced my case.

http://www.bumc.bu.edu/sexualmedicine/physicianinformation/female-
genital-anatomy/

It's below and behind the female pubic symphisis. Bashing the front of
the pubic symphisis is a painful waste of time.

Nobody said anything about bashing anything, you retarded, lying piece
of shit.

No, but that's what your claims implied.

You are an absolute daft idiot, at best.

AlwaysWrong, in vintage form.

There is the mons veneris. It is specifically there to protect the
pubic bone during sex. That means that it receives impact events.

One of it's functions might include acting as a shock-absorber, but since the pubic symphisis is mainly cartilage, it's difficult to image that it would be all that useful.

It is a known fact that some women like it being impacted during sex and
some do not.

The female population does include some masochists - and anybody who spent much time with you would seem likely to be a member of that rare minority.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Sun, 1 Mar 2015 02:38:09 +0000 (UTC), DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
<DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 17:35:43 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:

You are also an absolute idiot about how sex works as well.

You'd like to think so.

I know so. You have never heard the expression "bumping uglies"?

In the missionary position, the male 'pube' most definitely bangs
against the female's upper genital region.

You know... where the previously mentioned 'clit' is located.

You are an absolute daft idiot, at best.

Slowman is just being his usual pedant.

 

[Robert Baer]

Bill Sloman wrote:

On Saturday, 28 February 2015 17:44:22 UTC+11, Robert Baer wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, 27 February 2015 18:39:03 UTC+11, Robert Baer wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, 26 February 2015 15:35:22 UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 20:04:35 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, February 25, 2015 at 8:59:56 PM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 10:11:48 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/12/musk_to_unveil_home_storage_battery/

snip

Why not work it out for yourself? By the time twits like you have had to recognise that burning fossil carbon for fuel is a bad idea, we may have got flywheel storage working, so working out the details of what we might do today is something of a waste of time.

Flywheels MUST get their energy somewhere...

That is the implication of flywheel "storage", but you do need to have these things pointed out to you. The thread is about energy storage in "home batteries" but our slower posters do need frequent reminders.

So it is somehow a "benefit" to be "stupid" and IGNORE where these
storage devices GET their energy?

The thread started with a John Larkin reposting an article from the UK Register, where Elton Musk boasted about home storage battery about which was "the company was in the process of talking to a number of utility companies".

Somebody with a slightly better grip of reality than you exhibit would be aware that utility companies are having an increasing problem coping with power inputs from solar panels and wind farms, which don't tend to be timed to match the peaks in domestic power consumption.

So the rest of us aren't "ignoring" the question of where these storage devices get their energy - we understand that the utilities have a problem that this kind of device could solve. Since you seem to be a thick as a brick, you've missed this.

Not so; utilities companies have made serious investigations into use
of pumped water (refill dams) for storage as one of the many possible
methods.
Flywheels are not too good for storage of multi-megawatt power...

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, 2 March 2015 06:59:19 UTC+11, Robert Baer wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, 28 February 2015 17:44:22 UTC+11, Robert Baer wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, 27 February 2015 18:39:03 UTC+11, Robert Baer wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, 26 February 2015 15:35:22 UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 20:04:35 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, February 25, 2015 at 8:59:56 PM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 10:11:48 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/12/musk_to_unveil_home_storage_battery/

snip

Why not work it out for yourself? By the time twits like you have had to recognise that burning fossil carbon for fuel is a bad idea, we may have got flywheel storage working, so working out the details of what we might do today is something of a waste of time.

Flywheels MUST get their energy somewhere...

That is the implication of flywheel "storage", but you do need to have these things pointed out to you. The thread is about energy storage in "home batteries" but our slower posters do need frequent reminders.

So it is somehow a "benefit" to be "stupid" and IGNORE where these
storage devices GET their energy?

The thread started with a John Larkin reposting an article from the UK Register, where Elton Musk boasted about home storage battery about which was "the company was in the process of talking to a number of utility companies".

Somebody with a slightly better grip of reality than you exhibit would be aware that utility companies are having an increasing problem coping with power inputs from solar panels and wind farms, which don't tend to be timed to match the peaks in domestic power consumption.

So the rest of us aren't "ignoring" the question of where these storage devices get their energy - we understand that the utilities have a problem that this kind of device could solve. Since you seem to be a thick as a brick, you've missed this.

Not so; utilities companies have made serious investigations into use
of pumped water (refill dams) for storage as one of the many possible
methods.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station

Construction started in 1974, and it's been working since 1984. A fairly serious "investigation". Your quick google search was a bit too quick. I've had the advantage of driving past Dinorwig, not that there's much to see.

> Flywheels are not too good for storage of multi-megawatt power...

They are fine for multi-megawatt power - one was used a short term 500 Megawattpower source at the Australian National University from 1962 to 1986

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homopolar_generator

At first it used liquid metal brushes - a sodium and potassium alloy - but after this injured the guy who had to keep it clean, they went over to carbon brushes.

As energy storage devices, they do tend to be on the small side for utility applications - one in every house-hold might work.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[kevin93]

On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 11:59:19 AM UTC-8, Robert Baer wrote:
.....
> Flywheels are not too good for storage of multi-megawatt power...

Single megawatt ones are available off the shelf:

http://www.cat.com/en_US/products/new/power-systems/electric-power-generation/ups-flywheel/18498571.html

 

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUn]

On Sun, 01 Mar 2015 20:03:49 -0800, kevin93 wrote:

On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 11:59:19 AM UTC-8, Robert Baer wrote:
....
Flywheels are not too good for storage of multi-megawatt power...

Single megawatt ones are available off the shelf:

http://www.cat.com/en_US/products/new/power-systems/electric-power-
generation/ups-flywheel/18498571.html

They are five 300 kVA units strung together.

A single flywheel with that much juice spooled into it has some inherent
safety hazards surrounding it.

What is an earthquake, for instance, or an explosion knocked it out of
its saddles?

Just like an exploding battery, except this one would want to walk while
it destroys.

 

[mike]

On 3/1/2015 7:41 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Monday, 2 March 2015 06:59:19 UTC+11, Robert Baer wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, 28 February 2015 17:44:22 UTC+11, Robert Baer wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, 27 February 2015 18:39:03 UTC+11, Robert Baer wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, 26 February 2015 15:35:22 UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2015 20:04:35 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, February 25, 2015 at 8:59:56 PM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 10:11:48 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/12/musk_to_unveil_home_storage_battery/

snip

Why not work it out for yourself? By the time twits like you have had to recognise that burning fossil carbon for fuel is a bad idea, we may have got flywheel storage working, so working out the details of what we might do today is something of a waste of time.

Flywheels MUST get their energy somewhere...

That is the implication of flywheel "storage", but you do need to have these things pointed out to you. The thread is about energy storage in "home batteries" but our slower posters do need frequent reminders.

So it is somehow a "benefit" to be "stupid" and IGNORE where these
storage devices GET their energy?

The thread started with a John Larkin reposting an article from the UK Register, where Elton Musk boasted about home storage battery about which was "the company was in the process of talking to a number of utility companies".

Somebody with a slightly better grip of reality than you exhibit would be aware that utility companies are having an increasing problem coping with power inputs from solar panels and wind farms, which don't tend to be timed to match the peaks in domestic power consumption.

So the rest of us aren't "ignoring" the question of where these storage devices get their energy - we understand that the utilities have a problem that this kind of device could solve. Since you seem to be a thick as a brick, you've missed this.

Not so; utilities companies have made serious investigations into use
of pumped water (refill dams) for storage as one of the many possible
methods.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station

Construction started in 1974, and it's been working since 1984. A fairly serious "investigation". Your quick google search was a bit too quick. I've had the advantage of driving past Dinorwig, not that there's much to see.

Flywheels are not too good for storage of multi-megawatt power...

They are fine for multi-megawatt power - one was used a short term 500 Megawattpower source at the Australian National University from 1962 to 1986

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homopolar_generator

According to the reference, it's a 500 megajoule energy source.
The terms are equivalent if you only need the power for a second.

At first it used liquid metal brushes - a sodium and potassium alloy - but after this injured the guy who had to keep it clean, they went over to carbon brushes.

As energy storage devices, they do tend to be on the small side for utility applications - one in every house-hold might work.

 

[Syd Rumpo]

On 28/02/2015 06:46, Robert Baer wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, 27 February 2015 21:10:44 UTC+11,
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2015 23:38:59 -0800, Robert Baer wrote:

Flywheels MUST get their energy somewhere...

And they stall under load real fast. Think of how fast a capacitor
empties. That is why we use batteries not capacitors in devices.

A flywheel definitely falls in on the capacitor side, and has no
potential to take a load long distances without constant kicks in the
ass.
Not like a battery at all.

But close enough that people have built fly-wheel operated buses and
trains.
Strictly short range stuff, but the energy density is better than a
battery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_storage

BTW the title of this thread *really* "don't sound right".

You mean the alternative reading as "domestic violence"?

Folks get in trouble for that shit.

And so they should. On the other hand, I hadn't noticed the ambiguity
until you pointed it out. In group like sci.electronics.design a
battery is some that stores energy. Your experience may have
sensitised you to other interpretations.

What kind of salt?

A salt in battery, of course...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_battery

Cheers
--
Syd

 

[Syd Rumpo]

On 27/02/2015 04:04, Bill Sloman wrote:

<snip>

A domestic gas-fired gas-turbine driven generator might make more sense, but they do tend to be noisy. They are being peddled in Europe as combined heat and power packages for apartment blocks and factories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogeneration

Solar panels on the roof do make sense. Adding sun-tracking, even on one axis probably doesn't, unless somebody can invent a clever flexible mounting that flexes, rather than rotating a a shaft.

Home battery packs, if they could be made reliable and a very low maintenance - comparable with a domestic gas-fired central heating boiler - could also make sense. About half the cost of the electricity I buy is paid out to the distribution system, rather than the generating companies. Cutting out that particular middleman would make solar power commercially viable right now.

The economy of scale involved is in the mass-manufacture of the parts, not in the size of the parts manufactured.

Sodium Nickel Chloride ('Zebra') batteries are interesting. Very
reliable, very efficient, good energy density, no exotic chemicals, but
they need to be kept at something like 300'C. For a fridge-sized pack
with decent insulation, this isn't much of a problem.

Trouble is, GE bought the innovative company which did most of the
development.

Cheers
--
Syd

 

[Phil Hobbs]

That would sort of worry me, like liquid-salt heat exchange loops in solar generation plants. What happens if it cools down when you're on vacation?

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

 

[Syd Rumpo]

On 03/03/2015 13:07, Phil Hobbs wrote:

That would sort of worry me, like liquid-salt heat exchange loops in solar generation plants. What happens if it cools down when you're on vacation?

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

It freezes, and needs heating up again before use, it's no big deal.
The vehicle versions take IIRC about 24 hours to heat up using heater
pads in the battery pack. Too fast would be a problem.

Of course, if you're not using it, you either let it freeze, or use
power to keep it hot.

Cheers
--
Syd

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 3 Mar 2015 05:07:21 -0800 (PST), Phil Hobbs
<pcdhobbs@gmail.com> wrote:

That would sort of worry me, like liquid-salt heat exchange loops in solar generation plants. What happens if it cools down when you're on vacation?

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Or leaks?


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com