Electric Jensen Interceptor.

[VFK44]

You can't have a perpetual motion machine.
Sometimes phrased as "You can't get something for nothing", or if you are from the North, "You can't get owt for nowt ".

[felixkk]

The invention of the car which doesn't use any petrol, because it always rolled downhill, ended with a herb disappointment ("release the brakes, release the brakes")

104875E9-E903-4AA9-92B4-1E29911AF92A.jpeg (220.32 KiB) Viewed 893 times

[AH1951]

Update on various builds and workshop tour at Electric Classic Cars:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=80YQ5iqIkBA

[AH1951]

Update on the subject of this thread:

"It is still in progress.

It is a long project.

There will be another video on it later this year."

So now we know.

[johnw]

Update on the subject of this thread:

"It is still in progress.

It is a long project.

There will be another video on it later this year."

So now we know.

The engine and gearbox from the car was for sale here: viewtopic.php?t=34529
So we likely have the owner and engine still amongst us! It will be interesting to know what happens to the car over the years and also the engine. The original engine was reportedly very good by the seller having been restored. I do wonder if the oil on the floor and diatribe about the engine being toast was poetic license?

[Per]

What we need is a standard sized leasehold battery worldwide that can be quickly swapped out at a "charging station" in every make and model of electric car so topping up for 30 mins to 3 hrs is no longer required.

I'm sure someone could come up with a finance/lease model to accommodate the economics and cars would be cheaper to buy perhaps? Haven't we seen the VHS Betamax/Philips 2000 video scenario way back in history and still failed to learn? That way charging infrastructure is limited to existing filling station sites (which stores and charges flat batteries for the next lucky motorist) and charging at home for residents of flats and terraced houses etc is not so critical. When the likes of Tesla build the whole car around the battery in the floor of the car, we have no chance. This however is not the way we are blindly heading......Come the revolution brothers.......

Norway has an infrastructure based on electrical power for just about everything. Consequently the charging stations have popped up at all sorts of stores (parking spaces). Longer treks across the country is still a challeng though with long waiting queues to charge, and then the charging time. And people with mountain cottages either have to charge at the cottage (not always possible), or stop at least one time during winter.

So the capacity of the grid and then the local grid is the key.

Battery exchange (will have to be automated too) is a very long way off indeed.

[AH1951]

This ten-minute video comically covers the issue of reduced battery performance during very cold weather.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YKbAnOYUi ... cmFsaWE%3D

As for battery swap-outs, that would require a spare battery for every car.
As batteries presently cost about half as much as the car, that just isn't going to happen!
For obvious reasons!

[AH1951]

Adrian, I think you being disingenuous to suggest that CO2 has no effect on climate temperatures. The science of CO2 absorbing heat is not new, it is over 150 years old. Scientists in the 1850s discovered that CO2 absorbs heat and even then suggested that if there was more CO2 in the atmosphere the temperature would rise.

Chris, you with your crazy imaginations.

CO2 has no SIGNIFICANT effect because it's effect quickly tapers off on a logarithmic scale and nobody can tell you what %age of CO2 there SHOULD be in the atmosphere but it's presently at 0.042%.

[Per]

Adrian, I think you being disingenuous to suggest that CO2 has no effect on climate temperatures. The science of CO2 absorbing heat is not new, it is over 150 years old. Scientists in the 1850s discovered that CO2 absorbs heat and even then suggested that if there was more CO2 in the atmosphere the temperature would rise.

Chris, you with your crazy imaginations.

CO2 has no SIGNIFICANT effect because it's effect quickly tapers off on a logarithmic scale and nobody can tell you what %age of CO2 there SHOULD be in the atmosphere but it's presently at 0.042%.

The (said) effect of CO2 is to trap more vapour in the atmotphere which in turn increases heat retension. CO2 in itself is not the supposed culprit. However, looking at what (climate) reserachers say CO2 survival in the atmosphere is 2 - 4 years. Again looking at C14 in CO2 in the atmosphere after the period with nuclear bomb testing the decay was way more (20 year halftime IIRC). The discrepancy is supposed to be the cycling back into the atmosphere of CO2. But there are no firmly understood description of this cycle, it is not yet understood. I rest my case.

[RockyUSA]

I saw this on the Salton Sea out in California…

0D681C97-F236-4C0E-910B-D9BAC0743F32.jpeg (180.08 KiB) Viewed 190 times

[AH1951]

Chris, you with your crazy imaginations.

CO2 has no SIGNIFICANT effect because it's effect quickly tapers off on a logarithmic scale and nobody can tell you what %age of CO2 there SHOULD be in the atmosphere but it's presently at 0.042%.

The (said) effect of CO2 is to trap more vapour in the atmotphere which in turn increases heat retension. CO2 in itself is not the supposed culprit. However, looking at what (climate) reserachers say CO2 survival in the atmosphere is 2 - 4 years. Again looking at C14 in CO2 in the atmosphere after the period with nuclear bomb testing the decay was way more (20 year halftime IIRC). The discrepancy is supposed to be the cycling back into the atmosphere of CO2. But there are no firmly understood description of this cycle, it is not yet understood. I rest my case.

What case?

Meaningless gobbledeygook.

If it isn't fully understood, why are we wasting hundreds of billions on Net Zero nonsense?

The only thing to understand is that it's a scam.

The Emperor's new clothes.

Man-Made Climate Change is the biggest fraud ever invented.

There is NO science behind it.

The clowns promoting it at the UN are now hysterically talking about Global Boiling!

Completely Bonkers!

[johnw]

Global boiling event? As in lots of cups of tea.

[felixkk]

Meaningless gobbledeygook

rude

[Per]

CO2 has no SIGNIFICANT effect because it's effect quickly tapers off on a logarithmic scale and nobody can tell you what %age of CO2 there SHOULD be in the atmosphere but it's presently at 0.042%.

The (said) effect of CO2 is to trap more vapour in the atmotphere which in turn increases heat retension. CO2 in itself is not the supposed culprit. However, looking at what (climate) reserachers say CO2 survival in the atmosphere is 2 - 4 years. Again looking at C14 in CO2 in the atmosphere after the period with nuclear bomb testing the decay was way more (20 year halftime IIRC). The discrepancy is supposed to be the cycling back into the atmosphere of CO2. But there are no firmly understood description of this cycle, it is not yet understood. I rest my case.

What case?

Meaningless gobbledeygook.

If it isn't fully understood, why are we wasting hundreds of billions on Net Zero nonsense?

The only thing to understand is that it's a scam.

The Emperor's new clothes.

Man-Made Climate Change is the biggest fraud ever invented.

There is NO science behind it.

The clowns promoting it at the UN are now hysterically talking about Global Boiling!

Completely Bonkers!

The case is: if the mechanisms are not understood there are no valid conclusions to be drawn. Period.

That there are a number of other discrepancies underlines my point. E. g. vaporisation changes due to deforrestation (ludicrously underrated in the models, ref. Brazilian research) and urbanisation, influence of temperature changes on CO2 (and not the other way around) and statisticians' statement recently that the data used for sea temperature and global temperature measurements are not solid enough to conclude (on anything).

[Per]

Oh and why we are spending zilions? The simple answer is money. Two steps really. First Al Gore lost the election and started the circus to get rich, and he did. Second can be found in an article published by Die Grüne in 2012. They worried that German economy suffered through high energy prices. Remember that in 2011 there was fuckupshima so nuclear power was getting increasingly unpopular and coal was getting a lot of flak. So they outlined a plan to shift to renewables. They clearly stated that a broad coalition in Germany was necessary. They also stated that they had to get EU onboard. En passant the mentioned that it would also be good for the environment. The rest is history

You may say it all backfired badly with German car industry under massive pressure from China and energy prices causing general deindustrialisation. Of course the rejuvenation of the ELV directive aims to save the European car industry.