johnymccarthy
02 Aug 2017
Re: And what about fuel cells? marcher, your'e quote:-'Surely IVT, V-charge and flywheels have no place in the hydrogen/fuel cell world?'Surely they don't have a place in the real world either!
marcher
02 Aug 2017
Re: And what about fuel cells? JoG,I agree with your sentiments but does this have any relevance for TRK?Surely IVT, V-charge and flywheels have no place in the hydrogen/fuel cell world?It would be more relevant to AFC, IEH and ITM discussion boards.marcher
John of Groats
01 Aug 2017
And what about fuel cells? The Japanese car manufacturers seem to be the only ones promoting fuel cells now. This may explain why the UK government seems obsessed by rechargeable battery solutions but fuel cells would solve the problem of recharging at home. Quite apart from the need to add about 50% to generation capacity to cope with mass adoption of electric vehicles, the grid structure cannot support universal adoption of home recharging without massive investment right down to distribution to individual houses. Immagine a large estate with most households having two or more cars, all being recharged at night. (No more cheap rate overnight.)Which technology eventually wins will depend on cost and convenience as seen by consumers, not on government dictat.
John of Groats
01 Aug 2017
Re: Not dead yet? VRFB not a threat fyoz,VRFB batteries may not be the answer for electric cars yet.[link] main disadvantages with vanadium redox technology are a relatively poor energy-to-volume ratio in comparison with standard storage batteries (although the Generation 3 formulation has doubled the energy density [17] of the system), and the aqueous electrolyte makes the battery heavy and therefore only useful for stationary applications."
A T Hopkins
31 Jul 2017
I'm glad to see that nobody from TPSA wasted their time arranging a meeting with management following the AR.
srsm
31 Jul 2017
Re: where we went wrong ? Thank marcher, kind of thought that.I still have a hunch that the ICE is dead by 2020 or so is a bit of a fib. Found this (watch out for the auto play video describing the article)[link] they are really going for mild hybrids, full hybrids and some full electric. [link] hybrids do not have an exclusive electric-only mode of propulsion""Fuel savings would generally be lower than expected with use of a full hybrid design, as the design does not facilitate high levels of regenerative braking or necessarily promote the use of smaller, lighter, more efficient internal combustion engines"So couldn't VCharge fit the bill?[link] endless combinations throughout that page. Particularly once the different modes of driving are included (cruise, overdrive etc). Can't help but think that many solutions could still do with VCharge. Which makes me think it is the old story: nobody wants to go first. The race to second place.Sigh.
Komatsu100
31 Jul 2017
New Flybrid website Hmmm!!! Why?????[link]
marcher
31 Jul 2017
Re: where we went wrong ? srsm,V-charge is unlikely to be adopted for EV hybrids as the rapid response offered by v-charge is unnecessary since the electrical traction boost is instantaneous.Back in 2005 Torotrak proposed an "Electrically Assisted IVT" or "Mild Hybrid".[link] appears to have come of this........"Basically, Torotrak’s contention is that a parallel-hybrid drive (a “mild” hybrid where the electric motor provides additive traction but does not drive the vehicle on its own) built with an IVT could match the increased fuel efficiency benefit of a more complex, series-parallel (“power split”
hybrid architecture (e.g., the Prius), but at lower cost and less complexity—primarily through the efficiencies gained from the optimum control of the engine".I believe that an IVT could still be used on a hybrid application as a power splitting device between a petrol engine and an electric motor.
Another Jacko
31 Jul 2017
Re: RNS Re Holding in Company Hi TX2. We'll just have to wait and see whether the IP really is worthless. I've had a very small punt that after over £100m being spent on it it is worth more than 1p a share. I could be wrong but if I am I only stand to make a small loss in the speculative part of my SIPP which also includes stakes in TRT and AGL, both showing small profits.
TX2
31 Jul 2017
Re: RNS Re Holding in Company Yes Jacko you are right about PG's mixed record,esp when it concerns outside shareholders in his companies!The only "asset" perhaps that might have a value here could be the companys listing & maybe its tax losses if a profitable engineering company could be injected into it.
ABAPer
31 Jul 2017
Re: RNS Re Holding in Company [link]
Arapahoe
31 Jul 2017
Interesting RNS Interesting the latest RNS shows that a company (Swedish) has incrased there stake in TRK from just over 2% to 5.28%.Peter Gyllenhammar AB state on their website that they are a privately owned investment company and also from their website:-"PGAB mostly invest in “small-cap”-companies, predominantly in Sweden and the UK. Most often PGAB aim to establish a position as the largest shareholder in the companies in which we invest, our investment profile is typically that of a “proactive investor”.PGAB traditionally prefer to invest in industrial entities, we are typically long term holders, and also involved in strategic development within the companies in which we invest."This could end up being interesting.RegardsArapahoe
Another Jacko
31 Jul 2017
Re: RNS Re Holding in Company Peter Gyllenhammar is a bottom fisher who buys into bombed out companies with TNA greater than the market cap, then breaks them up/restructures them. He has a very mixed record but he has made a lot of money.
onemanandhisdog
31 Jul 2017
RNS Re Holding in Company If I am reading it right a Peter Gyllenhammar of Stockholm has increased his holding from 2.09% to 5.28% an increase of approx 17.5 million shares to 28,974,558 shares.Does he know something we don't?
staffai
31 Jul 2017
Re: Will they be able to sell? another wacko
