The Drive-a-Toyota Act
in [Toyota]
|
From: Bill Putney on 5 Jul 2007 21:05 Jeff wrote: > Bill Putney wrote: > >> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote: >> >>> In article <5f5catF3bdrnjU1(a)mid.individual.net>, >>> Bill Putney <bptn(a)kinez.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> You know - I find it particularly and disgustingly dishonest for a >>>> person to ask me specifically why I don't give some authoritative >>>> information (in this case on NiMH battery life), and then when I do >>>> exactly that, that same individual says I (therefore) am a >>>> know-it-all and that his part in the discussion is essentially over. >> >> >>> I'm sorry, I wasn't paying attention: what authoritative information >>> did you give? >> >> >>> And what authoritative sources did you cite? >> >> >> More dishonest tactics. The jig is up. > > > Yeah, you've got that right. > > You claimed that you cited authoritative sources, yet you can say what > they are. > > Jeff In this particular case, I'm one. But - I guess I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't, as you already consider me a know-it-all. So you're not going to accept what I say even though it is true. Care to argue with the facts I stated? No - I don't suppose you would as your purpose is not to bring out the facts but to discredit. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
From: Jeff on 5 Jul 2007 21:11 Bill Putney wrote: > Jeff wrote: >> Bill Putney wrote: >> >>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote: >>> >>>> In article <5f5catF3bdrnjU1(a)mid.individual.net>, >>>> Bill Putney <bptn(a)kinez.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> You know - I find it particularly and disgustingly dishonest for a >>>>> person to ask me specifically why I don't give some authoritative >>>>> information (in this case on NiMH battery life), and then when I do >>>>> exactly that, that same individual says I (therefore) am a >>>>> know-it-all and that his part in the discussion is essentially over. >>> >>> >>>> I'm sorry, I wasn't paying attention: what authoritative >>>> information did you give? >>> >>> >>>> And what authoritative sources did you cite? >>> >>> >>> More dishonest tactics. The jig is up. >> >> >> Yeah, you've got that right. >> >> You claimed that you cited authoritative sources, yet you can say what >> they are. >> >> Jeff > > In this particular case, I'm one. Considering that I don't think that you know what your talking about, and that you started by comparing UPS batteries to hybrid car batteries, I disagree. > But - I guess I'm damned if I do and > damned if I don't, as you already consider me a know-it-all. So you're > not going to accept what I say even though it is true. Yet, you have the opportunity to provide cite references (e.g., good web pages and even research articles an authority like you should be able to find). Those I will believe. > Care to argue > with the facts I stated? You have stated opinions, not facts. > No - I don't suppose you would as your purpose > is not to bring out the facts but to discredit. Actually, my purpose is two-fold: 1) To bring out the facts. 2) To discredit false information. Sorry if you have a problem with that. Jeff > Bill Putney > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my > address with the letter 'x')
From: Bill Putney on 5 Jul 2007 21:15 Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > Bill Putney <bptn(a)kinez.net> writes: > > >>who wrote: >> >> >>>...A Prius might then be running as a mild hybrid, not going so far >>>on battery only. >> >>According to the Toyota article, the car would go less than a mile on >>battery alone at low speed. What does that tell you about where the >>car gets most of its fuel efficiency from? (hint: a very efficient IC >>engine) As I said in another post, it would be interesting for >>someone to rip out the batteries and control electronics and see what >>the economy would be with just the IC engine. It might be found that >>the savings due to lower weight might just about offset the gains from >>regenerative braking. > > > Quite possibly. But you'd also lose the ability to run both power > plants when accelerating, so it would hurt performance. A fair test > would require putting in an engine that would give you the same > performance as the current hybrid power plant. There is some truth to that. Still, it might be interesting to see what mileage the car gets in a controlled test (with the hybrid configuration as a baseline) on the existing IC engine but with the weight and complexity of the batteries and its control paraphernalia removed. OK - and a second test with just an IC engine with the same efficiency optimizations as the current one but with more power (scaled up/larger displacement). Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
From: Edwin Pawlowski on 5 Jul 2007 21:35 "Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote in message news:db6f0$ > This probably does not count as "proof," but here is some information on > Prius battery life. > > Here is a story about a Prius in taxi service with over 200,000 miles: > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8839690/ > > According to this page on Toyota's web site, Toyota has not sold a single > battery pack replacement due to wear and tear since the Prius went on sale > in 2000: > http://www.toyota.com/about/environment/technology/2004/hybrid.html > > Here is Road & Track's take on whether it is cost-effective to replace the > battery pack in a worst-case scenario where it has to be replaced after 8 > years when the warranty expires: > http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=19&article_id=1183 Thanks Ray, it was very interesting. I'd have to conclude it is sound engineering and a reliable product. Well on its way to long term viability in a car. If replacement gets down to $1000, it truly is in reach of replacability for an older car.
From: Bill Putney on 5 Jul 2007 21:36
Jeff wrote: > Bill Putney wrote: > >> Jeff wrote: >>> Yeah, you've got that right. >>> >>> You claimed that you cited authoritative sources, yet you can say >>> what they are. >>> >>> Jeff >> >> >> In this particular case, I'm one. > > > Considering that I don't think that you know what your talking about, > and that you started by comparing UPS batteries to hybrid car batteries, > I disagree. Yes - I compared UPS batteries to hybrid car batteries as a general case of *rechargeable* batteries. They are different technologies - certainly. But anyone who knows anything about rechargeble batteries knows that they *ALL* have finite lives in terms of charge/discharge cycles (a statistical bell curve is involved of course). NiMH is a specific example of a general case (of rechargeable batteries). So whether you're talking about NiCad, NiMH, lead acid (flooded, gel, or glass matt), Lithium ion, or whatever, they each have a finite number of charge/discharge cycles. The fact that I originally stated (rechargeables...somewhat predictable cycels) is true and applies. You don't think that... You disagree... Sounds like *your* opinions. Oh - let me guess - when *you* have opinions, they are facts. Yeah - I get it. >> But - I guess I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't, as you >> already consider me a know-it-all. So you're not going to accept what >> I say even though it is true. > Yet, you have the opportunity to provide cite references (e.g., good web > pages and even research articles an authority like you should be able to > find). Those I will believe. Go ahead - Google the subject of number of charge/discharge cycles of NiMH batteries. If you find they are different than what I stated, I'd like to know. Facts is, what I stated *ARE* accepted facts. >> Care to argue with the facts I stated? > You have stated opinions, not facts. Yes - opinions of fellow experts. Find a true expert who disagrees with the number oif charge/discharge cycles of NiMH batteries. >> No - I don't suppose you would as your purpose is not to bring out the >> facts but to discredit. > Actually, my purpose is two-fold: > 1) To bring out the facts. Only the ones you like to support your opinions, the rest of the FACTS you will label as opinions - proved right here in this thread. > 2) To discredit false information. You haven't shown that to be genuine, but it sounds good. > Sorry if you have a problem with that. I don't when it's the case, which it isn't. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') |