We can never accomplish what we REFUSE to try.

Post #410,659 by mmoffitt 6/3/16 10:45:01 PM 6/3/16 10:45:01 PM Reply	We can never accomplish what we REFUSE to try.
Post #410,662 by rcareaga 6/4/16 12:14:25 AM 6/4/16 12:14:25 AM Reply	I'm also not going to fly to the moon on gossamer wings How is Sanders going to try? If you know, tell us. If Clinton was promising every family a pony, wouldn't you be curious about the details? Might you want to know how she planned to work it for families living in small tenth-floor apartments? What provision she contemplated making for pasturage and general upkeep? Would you feel the least concerned if she airily replied that these were details to be worked out later? cordially,
Post #410,683 by boxley 6/4/16 7:12:37 PM 6/4/16 7:12:37 PM Reply	if clinton promised everyone a pony I would expect right after her swearing in to open my front door and find a small heap of steaming pony scat. Promise delivered, she didnt state which part each person was getting. always look out for number one and don't step in number two
Post #410,687 by rcareaga 6/5/16 1:07:34 AM 6/5/16 1:07:34 AM Reply	you don't care for Hillary Clinton, box? Jeepers. Hoocoodanode?
Post #410,706 by mmoffitt 6/5/16 6:37:00 PM 6/5/16 6:37:00 PM Reply	Wall Street tax for openers. You can read about that on his site. Jfk: I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth. Rand/Scott response: That's NONSENSE! How is he going to do that? What are the specifics? We can't do that. We've barely put a man in space! He should be "practical." He should have said, "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of putting a man in orbit and returning him safely to the earth." That's what Hillary would have said. She knows how to get things done. Look, I get your position and Scott's. I really do. The status quo isn't going to hurt you, Scott or me personally. Placing the "safe" bet in November reduces the risk that we'll actually have to share some of what we have amassed. I'd only ask that you consider upon whose backs we have amassed our possessions and that you think long and hard about the opportunities we had in our youth due to genuine Democratic policies that have only one defender at present. Hillary's going to "restructure" students debts. IOW, she wants her criminal buddies on Wall Street to continue to profit on the educations of the populace. That idea is, in a word, obscene. You and I could afford school without the permanent indenture to Wall Street and you are quite right that no student of a middle-income household can do so today. Hillary will continue the obscenity that is today's funding of post-secondary education. Her opponent wants to change that by once again embracing true Democratic Party ideals. Not so for the Goldwater Girl. In the end, what I believe we are seeing is the unraveling of the Republican Party. They've played with fire for over 30 years and it looks like they've finally lost control of it. First, they let the Fundy Xians in and pretended to listen to them. Then Dick Armey got this really keen idea to establish a (T)axed (E)enough (A)lready organization of the balance of the knuckle draggers they didn't already have in their pockets from step one. Trump is the consequence of chasing the bottom of the intellectual scale. This does not trouble me a bit. Good riddance to bad garbage. What does trouble me, and it ought to trouble every single person who ever benefited from a true Democratic policy, is that what's going on is that the Democratic Party is becoming (or has become) the Republican Party and the Republican Party has become irrelevant. If, as appears likely, the Democratic nomination is decided before your polls close and it is Hillary vs. Trump in the general, the person who wishes that subsequent generations enjoy the same opportunities as he, himself, did will have no candidate for whom to vote.
Post #410,712 by Another Scott 6/5/16 7:12:13 PM 6/5/16 7:12:13 PM Reply	The people who have been hurt the most aren't on board with Bernie. WaPo: Speaking to reporters in a telephone news conference arranged by the Clinton campaign, Clyburn said Tuesday that he has "nothing against" Sanders, has worked with him in Congress and had met with him or spoken to him several times since Sanders entered the race last spring. But Clyburn said he was been unable to get the Sanders campaign to agree to shift its policy position on allocation of federal anti-poverty resources and to accommodate more black colleges in the signature Sanders proposal for free public college tuition. Clyburn said the Sanders college plan would "undercut and destroy" private, historically black colleges and universities. The Sanders campaign denies that the free tuition program would threaten historically black institutions, about half of which are public and half private. Sanders toured several historically black schools last week and spoke at Morehouse College, which is private. Clyburn also rejected criticism from Sanders allies that Clinton is "pandering" to African American voters ahead of the South Carolina vote. The primary will be the largest test to date of the candidates' strength among African American voters, who make up a majority of Democratic voters in the state. Clinton is polling far ahead of Sanders in South Carolina. "I guess you always try to find where the sweet spot on anything might be," Clyburn said, but that does not mean that outreach to the crucial black vote equals pandering. And Clinton's résumé shows she has not come lately to issues of racial justice, Clyburn said, citing her work in the 1970s on behalf of juvenile offenders and children in the South. "She wasn't running for president," at the time, Clyburn said. "Who was she pandering to back then?" Clyburn is the third-ranking Democrat in the House, and the unofficial dean of South Carolina Democrats. Clinton was campaigning in South Carolina later Tuesday alongside African American mothers who have lost children to police action or gun violence. Bernie didn't make the sale with them. The Democrats are not old-school Republicans. Your continuing to say that doesn't make it true. Republicans were always (at least in my memory, at least rhetorically) opposed to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. It's not some new Teabagger phenomenon that they want to gut those programs, and Obamacare. If you care about economic betterment for the masses, right now you need to support Democrats. Continuing to hold some chip on your shoulder about your favorite candidate losing 30+ years ago isn't helping your political mental health. ;-p Incremental progress is the only way we get progress. JFK proposed a goal. A goal that was solvable given enough resources, and incremental programs (Mercury, Gemini (and Agena), Apollo) were used to get there. Since Democrats controlled the House and Senate by large majorities, and the White House, and the courts weren't insane, it was an achievable goal (as we saw) when the resources were provided. Too many of Bernie's proposals on growth and unemployment and on single payer, e.g., don't make sense even if they could get through Congress. That's the difference. Cheers, Scott.
Post #410,733 by mmoffitt 6/6/16 8:59:32 AM 6/6/16 8:59:32 AM Reply	EXACTLY. Since Democrats controlled the House and Senate by large majorities, and the White House ... That is exactly my point. YOU keep electing these hacks with "roots founded in conservatism" who "ended the era of big government forever" as well as "welfare as we know it", etc. You know, all those programs put in place by the very same real Democrats to which you refer. And what was HRC doing back then? I'm not taking the apologist tack here you and Rand seem so fond of, I keep bringing up the Goldwater Girl period because it was a formative period of her life. Goldwater Girl values are her core values and you're helping her claim they are Democratic values. I'll make a deal with you. I will vote for Democrats again when Hillary releases the transcripts of her multi-million dollar speeches to Wall Street. Deal?
Post #410,738 by Another Scott 6/6/16 9:59:16 AM 6/6/16 9:59:16 AM Reply	People in divided government have to compromise. Imagine that. Carter had to compromise even when Democrats had all the levers in DC. Not everyone agreed with him and his policies. The answer is to elect more Democrats so that the left has more support. Nancy and Harry got stuff done because they had blue-dog votes along with Lefty McLeftist votes. That's the way the American system works. You're pining for a pure system that agrees with you in every detail. That system never was and never will be. Cheers, Scott.
Post #410,748 by mmoffitt 6/6/16 11:35:35 AM 6/6/16 11:35:35 AM Reply	What's divided? Two Right Wings don't count. You are casting history in fiction. The New Democrats ARE the Old Republicans. Take a look at the following quote FROM AN OLD REPUBLICAN and hopefully you'll see the truth of that. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group of course that believes you can do these things. Among them are a few other Texas oil millionaires and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid. ― Dwight D. Eisenhower https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/153796-should-any-political-party-attempt-to-abolish-social-security-unemployment
Post #410,755 by Another Scott 6/6/16 12:00:51 PM 6/6/16 12:00:51 PM Reply	Your continuing to say that doesn't make it so. One could just as easily say that Eisenhower would be a Democrat these days, and there's actually evidence to support that position. Which party would issues statements like these now: Under the attached plan, approximately 10 1/2 million individuals would be offered social security protection for the first time. About 6 1/2 million of these would be brought into the system; the remaining 4 million would be eligible for coverage under voluntary group arrangements. New groups to be covered would include self-employed farmers; many more farm workers and domestic workers than are now covered; doctors, dentists, lawyers, architects, accounts and other professional people; members of many state and local retirement systems on a voluntary group basis; clergymen on a voluntary group basis and several other smaller groups. As the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives proceeds with its studies to improve the Social Security Act, I strongly commend to this plan for the extension of coverage to most of the major groups now covered by any social insurance or public retirement system. This is a specific plan for a specific purpose--the extension of coverage. Other important improvements in the Social Security Act are now under study and will be subject of further recommendation. There are two points about these proposals which I cannot stress too strongly. One is my belief that they would add immeasurably to the peace of mind and security of the individual citizens who would be covered for the first time under this plan; the second is my belief that they would add greatly to the national sense of domestic security. The systematic practice of setting aside funds during the productive years are over--or to one's survivors in the event of death--is important to the strength of our traditions and our economy. We must not only preserve this systematic practice, but extend it at every desirable opportunity. We now have both such an opportunity and a definite plan. I commend it to the Congress for its consideration. I wasn't around when Eisenhower was President. I remember GOP leaders who said things like this and this and this. YMMV. Cheers, Scott.
Post #410,762 by mmoffitt 6/6/16 1:26:00 PM 6/6/16 1:26:00 PM Reply	What are we arguing again? I've said (in essence), "Since Reagan, the Democratic Party has morphed into the Republican Party and the Republican Party has morphed into the Lunatic Party." You've claimed that isn't so. That the Democratic Party is very different from the Old Republican Party. I then post a quote from an Old Style Republican President and you say, "Well, he would be a Democrat today ..." (which I think, is MY point) and then cite Reagan and a couple of successors in an apparent attempt to claim New Democrats aren't New Republicans. I'll give you that. Heck, that's what I've said. From my POV, you claim New Republicans aren't like New Democrats, so New Democrats are not like Old Republicans. That doesn't follow. I think we might be talking past one another again. Here's a summary of my views and I'd be surprised if you disagreed: (1) Are New Republicans worse than Old Republicans? Of course they are. They are insane, and either stupid (useful idiots), corrupt supporters of or members of the oligarchy. (2) Are New Republicans worse than New Democrats? Of course they are for reasons too obvious to list. Where we part, maybe, is here: (3) Are New Democrats worse than Old Republicans? No. They are essentially indistinguishable from one another. And that's why Hillary won't get my vote in November. I'm sick of voting for Republicans.
Post #410,765 by drook 6/6/16 1:42:08 PM 6/6/16 1:42:08 PM Reply	No, here's where we part (2) Are New Republicans worse than New Democrats? Of course they are for reasons too obvious to list. So you will vote for Trump. Because reasons. -- Drew
Post #410,769 by mmoffitt 6/6/16 1:56:54 PM 6/6/16 1:56:54 PM Reply	Because the Democratic Party is also running a Republican. And I don't think it's a good idea to let the New DNC think they can do that every cycle. If I pull the lever for Donald, it won't be a vote for Donald, but a vote against Hillary and her Old Style Republican Party.
Post #410,772 by rcareaga 6/6/16 2:01:32 PM 6/6/16 2:01:32 PM Reply	Well that certainly lets you off the hook, mein Herr.
Post #410,766 by Another Scott 6/6/16 1:46:36 PM 6/6/16 1:46:36 PM Reply	But Hillary isn't a Republican. Was Eisenhower the same kind of Republican as Lincoln? Was FDR the same kind of Democrat as Jackson? You're getting hung up on labels. In the fall, you should vote for the party (whatever their name) that will move the country the direction you want it to go given the reality of American politics and the American political system. Jill Stein has lots of good sound-bites, but she's got some insane positions as well: * We are in state of emergency; not state of recovery. (Jan 2015) * Romney & Obama are both pro-1% big corporation. (Feb 2012) * Cancel college debt: it's now $35,000 per student. (Jan 2016) * Move school decisions from national to grassroots level. (Dec 2011) * Moratorium on GMOs until they are proven safe. (Jun 2015) * Term limits end guaranteed re-election & lifetime incumbency. (Jul 2015) * Earmarks grease the skids for corruption. (Jul 2015) * Affordable Care Act is neither Affordable nor Caring. (Oct 2012) * ObamaCare was step backward for goal of single payer. (Jan 2012) * Disarm North Korea as part of worldwide nuclear disarmament. (Jul 2015) * Guaranteed jobs for all who need work. (Oct 2015) * Tea Party hijacked by funding from major corporations. (Mar 2012) * Dems & GOP are both sinking ships; one just sinks faster. (Feb 2012) Even if you think she's the best candidate, recognize that she would have almost no support in Congress and would be unable to get almost anything enacted. (An election that resulted in Stein being elected over Hillary wouldn't give Stein any coat-tails.) Purity kills. Vote Team D in the fall. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #410,768 by mmoffitt 6/6/16 1:55:09 PM 6/6/16 1:55:09 PM Reply	I'm getting hung up on labels? You want me to vote for Democrats for no other reason than they are Democrats. If Stein were on my ballot, I'd be voting for Stein. The only Old Style Democrat running is Bernie and the New DNC has done everything in its power to quash his effort. I don't vote for labels, I vote for people. Or I used to anyway. I'm seriously considering un-registering.
Post #410,771 by drook 6/6/16 1:59:15 PM 6/6/16 1:59:15 PM Reply	Only label I'm hung up on is "best on on the current ballot" Which, I believe, is what AScott (and everyone who's not you and Box) has been saying all along. -- Drew
Post #410,774 by Another Scott 6/6/16 2:12:01 PM 6/6/16 2:12:01 PM Reply	A President can do almost nothing by himself/herself. You need a President and Congress to be of the same party to get things done in American politics. Parties control the leadership in Congress, and the leadership determines what is considered, what is voted on, etc., etc. You're apparently Ok with black males dying earlier under GOP administrations. The parties aren't the same. Vote for the better party if you want to actually see progress. Cheers, Scott.
Post #410,770 by rcareaga 6/6/16 1:58:08 PM 6/6/16 1:58:08 PM Reply	"it was a formative period of her life" So why do you think Treuhaft took her on as an intern? He was a closet conservative? He was a stupid old man who couldn't recognize a Goldwater Girl when he saw one?
Post #410,775 by mmoffitt 6/6/16 2:15:18 PM 6/6/16 2:15:18 PM Reply	I don't think he even knew about her. We're talking a summer intern in 1971, right? As I understand things, she worked primarily with Burnstein. In her book, Clinton makes only passing reference to her responsibilities at the firm, stating, "I spent most of my time working for Mal Burnstein researching, writing legal motions and briefs for a child custody case." Burnstein, who was never a communist, is retired now. Reached at his home in California, Burnstein recalled that Clinton was one of the firm's better summer interns: smart and a hard worker. "She wasn't political at all, that I remember," Burnstein said. ... Burnstein couldn't recall what specific cases Clinton worked on, but at the time, he said, he had cases where landlords refused to rent to black people, and one in which a group of doctors took umbrage with being asked to sign a "loyalty oath" attesting that they were not communists. But they also did a lot of landlord-tenant, workers' comp, family law and personal injury cases. "We did poor people's law," Burnstein said. So why hasn't Clinton talked much about it? "I think you can figure out why," Burnstein said. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/feb/15/chain-email/shes-no-red/
Post #410,798 by rcareaga 6/6/16 9:50:28 PM 6/6/16 9:50:28 PM Reply	So Treuhaft's stodgy reactionary partner hired her Gotcha. "We did poor people's law," Burnstein said. Yeah, probably evicting poor people from rent-controlled apartments. Interesting the parts of the piece you neglected to quote: In addition to Treuhaft's former association with the Communist Party, another partner in the firm, Doris Walker, was, and still is, an active member. "It was who they were," Burnstein said. "It didn't really have a lot to do with the way we practiced law." Clinton must have known about those associations, he said. "It's not like it was a secret." "It was sort of a left-wing firm," Walker said, but most of the lawyers were not communists. To dredge it up now, she said, amounts to little more than red-baiting. In his biography of Clinton, former Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein states that at Treuhaft's firm, "she would be working for one of the most important radical law practices on the West Coast, celebrated for its defense of constitutional rights, civil liberties and leftist causes." Bernstein quotes Treuhaft as saying, "The reason she came to us, the only reason I could think of because none of us knew her, was because we were a so-called Movement law firm at the time." [emphasis added] Perfectly consistent with Goldwatergirlism, yes? Actually no, and not consistent with "her character was formed by eighteen," so why do you keep banging this drum? Since your assertion runs so obviously contrary to the facts of the case, I can only assume because you've become so invested in it that no argument or evidence can dislodge you. Fine. But hnick and boxley apart, none of the rest of us will take you seriously. cordially but not seriously,
Post #410,735 by mmoffitt 6/6/16 9:09:30 AM 6/6/16 9:09:30 AM Reply	You've GOT to be kidding. Obamacare? For Christ's sake, that was EXPLICITLY a Republican program. Lifted DIRECTLY from Mitt Romney. That's a better case for my argument that the New Democratic Party === Old Republican Party than I've ever made. You go back through Clinton's policies and there are many examples of his re-packaging of Old Republican policies, just like his wife will if she is elected. You saying it isn't so, does not make it as you'd like. The reason the Republicans hated Bill Clinton is that he was a more effective Republican than they could muster. But my guess is they ain't see nuthin yet.
Post #410,736 by Another Scott 6/6/16 9:53:23 AM 6/6/16 9:53:23 AM Reply	Tell me about how great Social Security was for AAs when it started. (roll-eyes)
Post #410,718 by rcareaga 6/5/16 8:04:55 PM 6/5/16 8:04:55 PM Reply	unconvinced I assume you refer to the “plan” set forth here . I have no quarrels with the goals, but the legal and practical means to this end elude me. The Sanders plan would make tuition free at public colleges and universities throughout the country. Again, how is this to be enforced? President Sanders can’t simply issue an executive order abolishing tuition at public universities. He cannot by fiat withhold existing federal funding until they comply. Congress, I suppose, could pass a law to accomplish this end, but I doubt whether “Bernie” will have a complaisant legislative branch (the Republicans will be as obstructive as it lies in their power to be, and some of our own DINOs will bestir themselves to resist the initiative, and the law in any event would generate multiple suits, with no guarantee that the Supreme Court would take the administration’s side. Suppose, as discussed earlier, the free tuition will be underwritten by a benificent federal government? The cost of this $75 billion a year plan is fully paid for by imposing a tax of a fraction of a percent on Wall Street speculators who nearly destroyed the economy seven years ago. More than 1,000 economists have endorsed a tax on Wall Street speculation and today some 40 countries throughout the world have imposed a similar tax including Britain, Germany, France, Switzerland, and China. If the taxpayers of this country could bailout Wall Street in 2008, we can make public colleges and universities tuition free and debt free throughout the country. Hey, I’m cool with a transaction tax. These guys are making zillions with nanosecond trades based on tiny fluctuations: they’re skimming, and the rest of us might as well skim their skim. For the moment I’ll take the site’s word for the $75 billion figure as representing potential revenue from this initiative, but again, I doubt whether the Masters of the Universe will direct their pets in Congress meekly to sign off on this, and I particularly doubt whether the public universities, most of whom are feeling pretty strapped for cash already, won’t just take the sums they are offered and raise existing tuition by close to that amount. Lookie! Free money! I’d love to be wrong about this, but Sanders’ plan (if we may so dignify what reads to me more like wishful thinking) looks to me as though it relies on catching a lot of favorable breaks, some of these less plausible than others. That’s not the same as saying “I’ve got mine, Jack,” as you seem to believe. cordially,
Post #410,734 by mmoffitt 6/6/16 9:00:49 AM 6/6/16 9:00:49 AM Reply	Betting on the "breaks" needed to get to the moon was equally shaky, no?
Post #410,737 by Another Scott 6/6/16 9:55:48 AM 6/6/16 9:55:48 AM Reply	It wasn't a bet. The path to the moon was via an incremental program. How is "Medicare for All" an incremental program? How is "Free College" an incremental program? They aren't. Bernie has no plans to do things incrementally. He has "fix it my way or the highway" sound bites. It won't work. Cheers, Scott.
Post #410,749 by mmoffitt 6/6/16 11:37:41 AM 6/6/16 11:39:08 AM Reply	Medicare for the elderly first, then for everyone. How is that NOT incremental? Free state university and junior college tuition isn't incremental, it's a return to what we once had for $DEITY'S sake! I love this. If Wall Street needs a trillion or so, the President can delegate the authority to give it to them over the week-end, no problem. But actually give people back the benefits they had when we could afford it less? Impossible. That's your position in a nutshell. Edited by mmoffitt June 6, 2016, 11:39:08 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #410,750 by Another Scott 6/6/16 11:45:42 AM 6/6/16 11:45:42 AM Reply	It's not complicated. Many people have pointed out the problems with Bernie's proposals - several links are in this thread. It's not some conspiracy to enrich the banksters. Cheers, Scott.
Post #410,752 by mmoffitt 6/6/16 11:47:04 AM 6/6/16 11:47:04 AM Reply	Oh, you've read her transcripts, then?
Post #410,761 by rcareaga 6/6/16 1:16:37 PM 6/6/16 1:16:37 PM Reply	Not as shaky as your repeated recourse to this analogy.
Post #410,719 by drook 6/5/16 8:07:58 PM 6/5/16 8:07:58 PM Reply	I'd love to see a comparable goal Build an electric car with a range of 300 miles that can be charged in 2 minutes. No, wait, that would be harder because there would be huge corporate opposition. I can't even think of a big goal where the technical problems would be bigger than the political ones. -- Drew
Post #410,722 by boxley 6/5/16 9:55:55 PM 6/5/16 9:55:55 PM Reply	can do that now but would need to be near a thunderstorm always look out for number one and don't step in number two
Post #410,723 by Another Scott 6/5/16 10:11:01 PM 6/5/16 10:11:01 PM Reply	I think that's harder than going to the moon. There are simple calculations that can be done to figure out how much electricity would be needed for a car to go 300 miles. Let's see, let's be aggressive and say it only weighs 2000 pounds. My Jetta needs 20 HP to cruise at 50 MPH, if I recall correctly. It weighs about 4000 pounds (with me). Let's say 10 HP to cruise at 50 MPH for our electric supercar. 1 HP = 745.7 watts Let's be very aggressive and assume no losses, and 1000 V electrical system. So 1 HP at 1000V = 0.75 amps, 10 HP = 7.5 A. 300 mile range at 50 MPH = 6 hours. 6 h x 7.5 A = 45.0 Ah = 2700 A min of battery capacity. Neglecting the falloff in battery voltage with discharge time, so probably even more battery capacity would be required. To charge in 2 minutes we would need to supply 1350 A. That's a boatload of current, even at 1000V. (And this is why electric cars are pushing the technology to higher and higher voltages.) I don't know of any way to overcome those intrinsic limitations. Going to the moon was "easy". Figuring out how to build a large enough rocket. Figuring out how to protect people outside the atmosphere. Figuring out how to do the navigation and docking. It's something that sensible project management with good people can accomplish in a reasonable amount of time. No physical or chemical laws had to be violated. ;-) If fast charging is required, then something like a hydrogen fuel cell would probably make more sense, but it only has about half the required range. Otherwise, I don't see how one gets around the need for ~ 10+ HP for a very long tome, and how that necessitates a very large amount of electrical power in a short charging time. There are lots of potential "moon-shot" projects that would take a decade to make substantial progress. Figuring out cancer. Creating new antibiotics. Creating new batteries with much higher total energy density. Getting started on a national high-speed rail system (let's remember that it took about 35 years to build-out the Interstate Highway system - HSR will probably take at least that long). We know how to attack these problems and make substantial progress. We just need to elect leaders that will make it happen. Like you say, easy peasy! :-( My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #410,730 by drook 6/6/16 7:34:24 AM 6/6/16 7:34:24 AM Reply	Replaceable batteries gets you the charge time And Musk has talked about building exchange stations. I thought about high speed rail but the issue there isn't technology, it's getting the right-of-way for it. -- Drew
Post #410,732 by Another Scott 6/6/16 8:50:56 AM 6/6/16 8:50:56 AM Reply	In the real world, people aren't going to be swapping 1000# of batteries in 2 minutes. ;-) I can't see it happening. Batteries need to be customized to the car (form factors) and they aren't just going to be a an easily-swappable cube in the trunk. Maybe with new battery materials fast swapping will become an option, but as long as batteries are big and heavy, I can't see it happening. There are still advancements to be done in HSR - e.g. what Acela tried to do running kinda fast trains on "normal" tracks via fancy suspensions and leaning and so forth; control systems to maximize packing on the tracks while maintaining safety; new track, road bed, power distribution materials to minimize maintenance costs; figuring out the most efficient ways to get people on and off the cars with their luggage, etc., while maintaining security; etc. They're interesting problems. Cheers, Scott.
Post #410,741 by boxley 6/6/16 10:47:20 AM 6/6/16 10:47:20 AM Reply	you need to go to a better place http://www.npr.org/2012/08/21/159355676/dont-charge-that-electric-car-battery-just-change-it always look out for number one and don't step in number two
Post #410,744 by Another Scott 6/6/16 11:22:41 AM 6/6/16 11:22:41 AM Reply	Interesting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Place Better Place filed for bankruptcy in Israel in May 2013. The company's financial difficulties were caused by mismanagement, wasteful efforts to establish toeholds and run pilots in too many countries, the high investment required to develop the charging and swapping infrastructure, and a market penetration far lower than originally predicted by Shai Agassi. Less than 1,000 Fluence Z.E. cars were deployed in Israel and around 400 units in Denmark, after spending about US$850 million in private capital. [4][5][6] After two failed post-bankruptcy acquisition attempts,[7][8][9] the bankruptcy receivers sold off the remaining assets in November 2013 to Grngy for only $450,000.[10] It's a tough way to try to make a living. Cheers, Scott.
Post #410,746 by boxley 6/6/16 11:24:32 AM 6/6/16 11:24:32 AM Reply	can be done doesnt mean it will be done always look out for number one and don't step in number two
Post #410,756 by drook 6/6/16 12:29:54 PM 6/6/16 12:29:54 PM Reply	So maybe getting battery weight down / energy density up is step 1 And that's a technical problem. That's comparable to putting someone on the moon. Fighting the current car manufacturers and gas companies is the political problem that you'd have to overcome to even start the project in the US. -- Drew
Post #410,758 by Another Scott 6/6/16 12:59:42 PM 6/6/16 12:59:42 PM Reply	It's not clear how much more can be done with current technology. Making a bigger rocket is "easy". Just keep adding motors if necessary. Look at Soyuz: Putting more electrical energy in a fixed volume is hard. Foreseeable batteries probably aren't the best solution for transport. The performances of ECs can be compared in the Ragone chart plotting their respective energy and power densities as illustrated in Fig.2 [above] for different electrical energy storage devices. Due to their physical charge storage, capacitors feature very large power densities compared with batteries and fuel cells but low energy densities. On the other hand, batteries and fuel cells have large energy densities but low power densities due to their slow reaction kinetics. Electrochemical capacitors bridge the gap between capacitors and batteries/fuel cells. They offer the prospect of maintaining the high energy density of batteries without compromising the high power density of capacitors. Our hypothetical 10 HP 300 mile, 6 hour, range car would need 45Ah x 1000V x 6 hours = 270 kWh in energy. At 200 Wh/kg, that's 1350 kg of advanced batteries. Ouch. Maybe some combination of fuel cells for endurance and batteries for quick acceleration is the way to go. Dunno. A paper on R&D considerations: Electrochemical capacitors (especially double-layer capacitors) are intrinsically high power devices of limited energy storage capability and long cycle life; batteries are basically energy storage devices, which can be designed and used as relatively high power devices with a sacrifice in useable energy storage capacity. Both electrochemical capacitors and high power batteries are designed with thin electrodes, materials having nano-scale characteristics, and a minimum resistance. Much of the research on electrochemical capacitors is concerned with increasing their energy density with the minimum sacrifice in power capability and cycle life for deep discharges. Of special interest has been the development of advanced carbons with specific capacitance (F/g) significantly greater than the present values of 150–200 F/g in aqueous electrolytes and 80–120 F/g in organic electrolytes. Cost continues to be a major obstacle to the development of large markets for electrochemical capacitors particularly for vehicle applications. The development of lower cost carbons appropriate for use in electrochemical capacitors is underway by several speciality carbon suppliers. The goal is to reduce the cost of the carbon to $10–15/kg. Ultimately, anything developed for a real market has to be cheap enough. That wasn't a consideration in going to the Moon. ;-) Note that there may be some error in my calculations - don't be betting money on them! Cheers, Scott.
Post #410,759 by drook 6/6/16 1:09:00 PM 6/6/16 1:09:00 PM Reply	The top end for fuel cells shows 1,000 Wh/kg, that's 1.35 kg That's a bit under 3 pounds. Manage a third of that and you've got ~10 lb unit that would need to be swapped out. That's self-service light. Half again and you need two units, which would be a better idea anyway. -- Drew
Post #410,763 by Another Scott 6/6/16 1:26:38 PM 6/6/16 1:28:06 PM Reply	But like the paper says, fuel cells are slow. And refilling fuel cells with hydrogen is fast, so they wouldn't need to be swapped out. As I understand it, fuel cells are good for providing lots of energy (Wh) but can't do it quickly (because it works via chemical reactions - atoms moving across membranes and such). So if you want to cruise at 50 mph on flat ground for 6 hours, they're probably great for that. If you want to accelerate from 0-60 in < 10 s, they're probably not at all great for that due to the low power density (energy provided per unit time). Just to see what batteries and fuel cells are up against, see where they are compared to gasoline and diesel fuel below: Powering trackless transportation affordably a tough problem... Cheers, Scott. Edited by Another Scott June 6, 2016, 01:28:06 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #410,764 by drook 6/6/16 1:40:42 PM 6/6/16 1:40:42 PM Reply	Hybrid is is, then Take today's gas/electric hybrid and swap out the gasoline engine for a fuel cell. -- Drew
Post #410,841 by Ashton 6/7/16 5:28:20 PM 6/7/16 5:28:20 PM Reply	Bitchin Soyuz pic, also brief energy-density graph.. Rocket "engines" (as shown here analogous to the sizes of organ pipes!) All they are is: an Infrasound Organ! (Think: "Asleep in the Deep" on Rocket ... not a mere tuba.) {{chortle}}

Welcome to IWETHEY!