Re: Non-exploding NiMH batteries
- From: whheydt@xxxxxxxxxxx (Wilson Heydt)
- Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 17:05:02 GMT
In article <20060630.0545.106932snz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
David G. Bell <dbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thursday, in article
<3IWdndY4mqTe9TnZnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@xxxxxxx> dietz@xxxxxxx
"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:
Paul Ciszek wrote:
Buy an old Stanley Steamer and refurbish it; you'll get much better
performance, and it's a flex-fuel vehicle.
The point of this was a vehicle that could be electrically
recharged and didn't need to burn any liquid fuel.
A Stanley has the wrong sort of boiler, but "fireless" boilers were
built and used.
I would assume that the "fireless boilers" use immersion heaters,
and if you, the Stanleys use of a fire-tube boiler really wouldn't
work that way. The fire-tube boiler does have at least one major
advantage over water-tube, though....
--
Hal Heydt
Albany, CA
My dime, my opinions.
.
- References:
- Non-exploding NiMH batteries
- From: Paul Ciszek
- Re: Non-exploding NiMH batteries
- From: Paul Ciszek
- Re: Non-exploding NiMH batteries
- From: Paul F. Dietz
- Re: Non-exploding NiMH batteries
- From: "David G. Bell"
- Non-exploding NiMH batteries
- Prev by Date: Re: Translating from the American
- Next by Date: Re: Talking of old jokes
- Previous by thread: Re: Non-exploding NiMH batteries
- Next by thread: Re: Non-exploding NiMH batteries
- Index(es):