Electric Cars

[katabeachbum]

Electric motors are a lot more energy efficient than the internal combustion engine.

The problem is that fossil fuels store a lot more energy than can be stored by the equivalent volume of batteries, which is why electric cars have relatively short ranges between charges.

So long as the combination of power station + transmission + power lost in the charging process + electric motor is more efficient than hydrocarbon transport (trucking to petrol stations, etc.) + an internal combustion engine, there will be a gain in CO2 emissions even without the move to renewables/nuclear for the electricity generation.

Personally, I think climategate has shown that global warming is still not completely understood or they wouldn't have been trying to fudge the numbers to hide that, although warming definitely occured in the 90s, it slowed to a virtual standstill in the last decade.

My own pet theory, I think that the CFCs in aerosols/fridges/aircon were far more important in global warming than is being allowed for in the models. i.e. Everyone admits they are significantly more important per cubic metre than CO2, and with the banning of them in aerosols and the reduction of their use in other appliances coinciding with when warming appears to have stopped...

"Electric motors are a lot more energy efficient than the internal combustion engine." - how so?

there are a lot of myths surrounding "electric" motor vehicles and that is one of them.To get forward motion you need energy and that comes from where and how much do you need?

"The problem is that fossil fuels store a lot more energy than can be stored by the equivalent volume of batteries, which is why electric cars have relatively short ranges between charges."well there's half your answer from yourself!

electric motors have the highest torque upon startup, if you look at freight trains they almost all have electric motors which are powered by diesel generators.

electric motors can be designed to vary the density and number of magnetic poles as system speed increase, the faster the motor spins, you'd want a lower number of poles, another technique used is to reduce the surface area of the stator as the rpms increase.

Here's someone who doesn't understand the what I'm talking about when I refer to "efficiency"

don't confuse torque with efficiency.

basically wht we are looking at is a way to convert energy into motion in the form of public transport. If you only look at one small detail (the motor itself) in isolation you won't get the big picture..........

A electric MOTOR has only one moving part - which is great and usually doesn't require a multiple ratio gearbox.all this is great.

BUT the batteries need charging......this is done via an electrical supply, usually generated a long way away. Now this seems to also generate a general perception of "out of sight, out of mind" - but one way or another the electricity has to be generated - mostly by fossil fuels and then transmitted to the vehicle, stored in the vehicle in a battery and then transmitted via the motor to the wheels - this long and complex chain is INEFFICIENT.As a way of converting our resources of power to forward, private motion the electric car represents an inefficient way of moving about.

As for forecasts of electric car production and usage, as in the long run they don't offer a reduction of consumption of the world's natural resources, they will inevitably fail.

If s pointed out hydrogen cell technology become more viable then one might see electric cars becoming a workable alternative. I mentioned hydrogen and hydrogen cell technology way back.

If you think nuclear power will "safe the day" you are also sadly mistaken. Countries ;ike 'China and Australia will be powering their grid with COAL for years to come

As for "theories on CLIMATE CHANGE ...not "global warming - tat t is a misleading term.......

Firstly I think many people think that a scientific "theory" is the same thing as an idea you come up with in the pub...not so.

Newton, Darwin and even the risk of cancer from smoking are all still "theories" and even in some cases have been show not to be quite as universal as first thought. However they are still the most practical way of looking at analysing and dealing with the real. physical world that we have today. "facts" o the other hand are completely useless until they form part of a theory or argument..... then trying to shoehorn them into conveniently pre-formed opinions is just a waste of time.

trying to push global warming aside as "only a theory" is really only a reflection of that person's lack of understanding what a scientific "theory" really is.

I wouldn't rely on the mass media to get it right either.

an engine in a car can use energy for only 2 things, move vehicle and produce heat

thus energy efficiency is as follows

1. electric engines producing almost no heat

2. diesel engines, producing little heat

3. petrol engines producing rather much heat

in addition, for an electric engine its possible to find energy from "braking" vehicle, thus regenerating energy

I am not a huge believer in hybrids as long as they have insufficient battery capasity to last for 200km on a grid charge

[MoonRiverOasis]

Electric cars are more efficient then gasoline/diesel, even if you factor in the electricity supply being generated from natural gas rather than more resource-efficient methods of generation (e.g. solar, wind, hydro, nuclear).

According to Tesla, thair all-electric Roadster (in production since 2008) has a total energy effeciency of 12.7kWH/100km assuming the electricity comes for free, which increases to 24.4kWH/100km if the electricity stored in it's Li-on batteries is generated using natural gas and supplied using the grid.

An average gasoline powered car with ~10km/L fuel economy has 4 times worse efficiency at 96kWH/100km.

But even without all of that, electric just makes total sense from both a technical and consumer point of view:

• Electric motors make maximum torque at zero RPM - exactly where you need it in a car.
• Electric cars have several thousand fewer moving parts.
• Electric motors do not use any energy at all when they're not moving
• Electric cars can recapture ~20% of the energy normally lost as heat during braking.
• Electric cars have zero emissions
• Electric cars are substantially quieter
• Electric cars have substantially less vibrations from the drivetrain.
• Electric cars generate far less heat
• Electric cars are simpler to diagnose, service and repair.
• Electric cars are simpler to manufacture.

The only possible arguments against electric are price and range, but all of these will be non-issues in the very near future with economy of scale, and battery tech/fast chargers/range extenders.

If you still feel that cars that burn crude oil have an edge over electric cars, please feel free to point out the reasons why

[beano2274]

If we have electric cars in Thailand, just watch see how many people cheat the Electric company and charge their cars using the cables that just hang around everywhere.

You see it everyday on the street, people selling things using the electric straight from the lamp post or from a junction box, without having to pay for it.

[Deeral]

KBB - You've done it again - complete nonsense - I suspect you're Googling this.

THe EFFICIENCY - is how much of the energy is converted.For instance a bicycle is just about the most efficient motion machine you can get.what you have done is exactly what I said that most people do - they focus only on the MORTOR itself and fail to see the whole picture........

Heat is generated by the energy source. In an internal combustion engine the heat is generated INTERNALLY by primarily by burning the FUEL; with an electric motor the heat is generated back at the power station and then in resistance as it is transported through wires and also in the battery as it struggles to store and release the power that it has stored, which is by no means 100% either. they also have greater MASS than an internal combustion engined vehicle, model for model.

BTW - you actually in the other thread posted some stuff that is actually the OPPOSITE of the truth and you appear to be getting the wrong end of the stick here too.

and of course a hybrid car can claim to have the worst of both worlds!

Moon river - completely fails to grasp a single issue and is regurgitating stuff we all know as if it is an argument - what a waste!

i have to say I really am unimpressed by the standard of this discussion

[Deeral]

Transam - it is quite simple and has been said over and over - electric cars burn crude oil too - just in a different place.

[katabeachbum]

KBB - You've done it again - complete nonsense - I suspect you're Googling this.

THe EFFICIENCY - is how much of the energy is converted.For instance a bicycle is just about the most efficient motion machine you can get.what you have done is exactly what I said that most people do - they focus only on the MORTOR itself and fail to see the whole picture........

Heat is generated by the energy source. In an internal combustion engine the heat is generated INTERNALLY by primarily by burning the FUEL; with an electric motor the heat is generated back at the power station and then in resistance as it is transported through wires and also in the battery as it struggles to store and release the power that it has stored, which is by no means 100% either. they also have greater MASS than an internal combustion engined vehicle, model for model.

BTW - you actually in the other thread posted some stuff that is actually the OPPOSITE of the truth and you appear to be getting the wrong end of the stick here too.

and of course a hybrid car can claim to have the worst of both worlds!

Moon river - completely fails to grasp a single issue and is regurgitating stuff we all know as if it is an argument - what a waste!

i have to say I really am unimpressed by the standard of this discussion

deeral, no comment on your complete nonsense, what a waste

[MoonRiverOasis]

KBB - You've done it again - complete nonsense - I suspect you're Googling this.

THe EFFICIENCY - is how much of the energy is converted.For instance a bicycle is just about the most efficient motion machine you can get.what you have done is exactly what I said that most people do - they focus only on the MORTOR itself and fail to see the whole picture........

Heat is generated by the energy source. In an internal combustion engine the heat is generated INTERNALLY by primarily by burning the FUEL; with an electric motor the heat is generated back at the power station and then in resistance as it is transported through wires and also in the battery as it struggles to store and release the power that it has stored, which is by no means 100% either. they also have greater MASS than an internal combustion engined vehicle, model for model.

BTW - you actually in the other thread posted some stuff that is actually the OPPOSITE of the truth and you appear to be getting the wrong end of the stick here too.

and of course a hybrid car can claim to have the worst of both worlds!

Moon river - completely fails to grasp a single issue and is regurgitating stuff we all know as if it is an argument - what a waste!

i have to say I really am unimpressed by the standard of this discussion

You complain about the unimpressive standard of conversation here, but I'm sure most will agree that you particular writing style is unfortunately very hard to read. You're obviously a smart guy, and I suspect your brain is just one of those that's processing 4 different ideas at once - unfortunately those 4 different things seem to make their way into each paragraph..

I will do my best to respond in any case. It would appear you're wanting to base a debate around energy effeciency of electric vehicles vs oil burners - your exact point-of-view(s) are not entirely clear, so I'll try to think of as many as a I can and respond. Just to be clear, I'm not putting words in your mouth here, and I could be totally miscomprehending the actual point you're trying to make.

Energy Efficiency of Electric Cars:

• From a "raw energy" standpoint, current electric vehicle technologies are more than four times more efficient than current oil-burning-only vehicles. A typical electric motor as used in today's electric cars achieves ~90% energy efficiency vs ~20% efficiency for gasoline powered engines.

• From the "the electricity they use was generated using fossil fuels" standpoint, they are anywhere from 0% (i.e. identical) to 400% more efficient than oil burning vehicles, based on grid power. The lower end of the scale here is electricity generated using coal (in which case a grid-charged EV uses about the same amount of base energy as a gasoline car). The higher end being nuclear, and the top-end solar/wind/hydro of course. If charging yourself from wind/solar, they are infinitely more efficient..

• From the "they still need energy to be manufactured" standpoint, electric with it's reduced part count and heavily simplified design as a winner from a raw energy POV, but from an emissions POV still about the same. This does vary substantially from manufacturer to manufacturer however, with higher-end marques having more ability to implement cleaner, already recycled and/or more recyclable materials, and more expensive manufacturing methods/techniques.

• From the "they still use grease in the bearings" standpoint, electric wins due to simply having less bearings

Edited October 15, 2010 by MoonRiverOasis

[Tywais]

Prediction: three million electric vehicles by 2015

First, the good news: all-electric vehicles will be catching on fast, with several million on the road within a few years.

Now, the bad news: they’ll draw a lot of juice from an already overloaded electrical grid.

The Nissan Leaf goes on sale at the end of 2010 in the U.S. and select markets, with global availability scheduled for 2012.

Mass production: the all-electric Nissan Leaf goes on sale at the end of 2010 in US and select markets, with global availability scheduled for 2012.

A study from IDC Energy Insights predicts that plug-in electric vehicles will be hitting the market within the year, and 540,000 will be sold globally by 2012. There will be more than 2.7 million of the vehicles on roads across the globe within five years.

IDC predicts there will be 885,000 electric cars in North America and more than 780,000 in Europe by the year 2015. The report’s authors warn, however, that the electric grid won’t be ready for this surge. “Unfortunately, these vehicles will cause havoc on the distribution grid if they start appearing without any preparation by grid managers. The utilities that prepare today for this new reality will be the ones that will win in the long term.”

SmartPlanet - Business

[MoonRiverOasis]

The report's authors warn, however, that the electric grid won't be ready for this surge. "Unfortunately, these vehicles will cause havoc on the distribution grid if they start appearing without any preparation by grid managers. The utilities that prepare today for this new reality will be the ones that will win in the long term."

The writers of this article must be unaware of the massive programs and initiatives underway by most leading governments on this front... They write as if it's going to catch them by surprise, unware, or unprepared - for this I give them a big LOL (and a little bit of *sigh* ).

Edited October 15, 2010 by MoonRiverOasis

[Deeral]

moon river please don't waste your time telling me what I already know - what you fail to do is interpret the facts in a logical way.

[Deeral]

Methinks MR and TA have been watching too many episodes of the Jetsons.

In our region both China and Australia are looking to COAL as the fuel for the future!

[Deeral]

On a different tack - Contrary to some beliefs on this thread, battery technology has NOT come on in leaps and bounds, despite massive investment - not just from the motor industry but several other industries too - (mobile phones for one)..THere is a problem here that has yet to be solved - energy stored versus weight.

Physics puts a limit on it - as basically it has to be electron production and that has physical limits that as yet can't be circumvented.you might want to ask yourself too where all the lithium is going to come from.

If you really want to gt to grips with it read this....

"An EV recharged from the existing US grid electricity emits about 115 grams of CO₂ per kilometer driven (6.5 oz(CO₂)/mi), whereas a conventional US-market gasoline powered car emits 250 g(CO₂)/km (14 oz(CO₂)/mi) (most from its tailpipe, some from the production and distribution of gasoline).^[68] The savings are questionable relative to hybrid or diesel cars, (according to official British government testing, the most efficient European market cars are well below 115 grams of CO₂ per kilometer driven, although a study in Scotland gave 81.4g CO2/km^[69]), but would be more significant in countries with cleaner electric infrastructure. In a worst case scenario where incremental electricity demand would be met exclusively with coal, a 2009 study conducted by the WWF, World Wide Fund for Nature, and IZES found that a mid-size EV would emit roughly 200 g(CO₂)/km (11 oz(CO₂)/mi), compared with an average of 170 g(CO₂)/km (9.7 oz(CO₂)/mi) for a gasoline powered compact car.^[70] This study concluded that introducing 1 million EV cars to Germany would, in the best case scenario, only reduce CO₂ emissions by 0.1%, if nothing is done to upgrade the electricity infrastructure or manage demand.^[70]"

Edited October 15, 2010 by Deeral

[Deeral]

Sadly TA you aren't actually talking about the same thing as me anymore = this is what I find so frustrating is that posters seem to take a contrary view to my posts without actually understanding them and then post on a different topic.

in effect I say A will cause B and you post no because X is Y......see?

if you want to discuss the long term future of fuels and their uses why not start another thread rather than clog this up with your - quite erroneous - ideas on the subject?

Edited October 15, 2010 by Deeral

[ignis]

What I do not understand is having to plug an electric car into a electric power point...

Never worked it out for many years, often looked years ago at the wind turbines, the blades go round so very slow, now open your window even driving at 20km and a kids windmill will turn at a high speed. I could never work out why say 4 kids sized engineered windmills could not be installed behind the front grill and why they would not charge the batteries ??

Sure I understand years ago when they were trying out small electric City only cars, and yes if a car was used only stop/start in a City,

But 1000's of people/cars/trucks drive into Bangkok everyday to work, [All Cities around the world] so batteries would be fully charged when arriving in the City, and get recharged again on the drive home + many thousand never drive in a City, or very rarely..

My thinking was if everyone had electric there would only be a small amount of these that would ever need to 'plug-in'

I am sure there are folk on here that could explain why this would not be possible

[MoonRiverOasis]

On a different tack - Contrary to some beliefs on this thread, battery technology has NOT come on in leaps and bounds, despite massive investment - not just from the motor industry but several other industries too - (mobile phones for one)..

Like the recent porous Si anode research that provides 4x storage capacity for Li-ion batteries for example right? Leaps and bounds are being made every few months.

[Deeral]

US energy sources - take a look....note the coal!

2008_US_electricity_generation_by_source_v2.png

Edited October 15, 2010 by Deeral

[MoonRiverOasis]

Never worked it out for many years, often looked years ago at the wind turbines, the blades go round so very slow, now open your window even driving at 20km and a kids windmill will turn at a high speed. I could never work out why say 4 kids sized engineered windmills could not be installed behind the front grill and why they would not charge the batteries ??

In your example, the wind turbine would introduce drag, which in turn would increase the energy requirement to propel the vehicle (and rotate the turbine), resulting in a net loss of energy.

[Deeral]

On a different tack - Contrary to some beliefs on this thread, battery technology has NOT come on in leaps and bounds, despite massive investment - not just from the motor industry but several other industries too - (mobile phones for one)..

Like the recent porous Si anode research that provides 4x storage capacity for Li-ion batteries for example right? Leaps and bounds are being made every few months.

You wouldn't know a "leap and bound" if it jumped on your back.

i'm sorry but you really haven't a clue - just try to be a bit critical about what you read and how you put it into comntext.

[MoonRiverOasis]

On a different tack - Contrary to some beliefs on this thread, battery technology has NOT come on in leaps and bounds, despite massive investment - not just from the motor industry but several other industries too - (mobile phones for one)..

Like the recent porous Si anode research that provides 4x storage capacity for Li-ion batteries for example right? Leaps and bounds are being made every few months.

You wouldn't know a "leap and bound" if it jumped on your back.

i'm sorry but you really haven't a clue - just try to be a bit critical about what you read and how you put it into comntext.

I have absolutely no idea what point you're trying to make here, but it's not working

[Deeral]

On a different tack - Contrary to some beliefs on this thread, battery technology has NOT come on in leaps and bounds, despite massive investment - not just from the motor industry but several other industries too - (mobile phones for one)..

Like the recent porous Si anode research that provides 4x storage capacity for Li-ion batteries for example right? Leaps and bounds are being made every few months.

You wouldn't know a "leap and bound" if it jumped on your back.

i'm sorry but you really haven't a clue - just try to be a bit critical about what you read and how you put it into comntext.

I have absolutely no idea what point you're trying to make here, but it's not working

Now why doesn't that surprise me.I really can only see a conversation with you degenerating into a series of invective.

I've spoken with 10 year olds who have better comprehension than yourself.The last posts you've made have had no relevance whatsoever because you don't seem to know what is going on.And no! i won't go over it again.

[Deeral]

"a sayonse" - a WHAT???

this is what I'm up against.

I'm off to get some food.

[MoonRiverOasis]

You're an absolute riot Deeral!

You remind me of one of my favorite movie quotes: "sell crazy some place else, we're all stocked up here"

ROFLMFAO

[katabeachbum]

On a different tack - Contrary to some beliefs on this thread, battery technology has NOT come on in leaps and bounds, despite massive investment - not just from the motor industry but several other industries too - (mobile phones for one)..THere is a problem here that has yet to be solved - energy stored versus weight.

In 1986 the battery to my mobilephone was 5 kg and lasted less than 12 hours. a backpack was needed to use it out of car:rolleyes:

in 1987 it was only 4 kg and lasted more than 12 hours, and it had become handheld

in 1993 it was 500 G (half kg) and lasted more than 24 hours, and it was pocketsize

in 2010 its 20 G and lasts for a week, and is smaller than my creditcard

in 25 years batteries have reduced size and weight. they are not made of the same materials any more, they can be charged at any time and full in very short time, and their efficiency compared to weight and size is 200 times it was 25 years ago.

battery technology has developed. this is the battery tech most electric cars use. if there are buyers to existing hybrids/el cars, they will develop further very rapidly

fossile fuel cars still use leadacid at +20 kg to start up and store

[Deeral]

On a different tack - Contrary to some beliefs on this thread, battery technology has NOT come on in leaps and bounds, despite massive investment - not just from the motor industry but several other industries too - (mobile phones for one)..THere is a problem here that has yet to be solved - energy stored versus weight.

In 1986 the battery to my mobilephone was 5 kg and lasted less than 12 hours. a backpack was needed to use it out of car:rolleyes:

in 1987 it was only 4 kg and lasted more than 12 hours, and it had become handheld

in 1993 it was 500 G (half kg) and lasted more than 24 hours, and it was pocketsize

in 2010 its 20 G and lasts for a week, and is smaller than my creditcard

in 25 years batteries have reduced size and weight. they are not made of the same materials any more, they can be charged at any time and full in very short time, and their efficiency compared to weight and size is 200 times it was 25 years ago.

battery technology has developed. this is the battery tech most electric cars use. if there are buyers to existing hybrids/el cars, they will develop further very rapidly

fossile fuel cars still use leadacid at +20 kg to start up and store

Unfortunately none of this will enable a lightweight electric car!THis is not breakthrough - the physics behind a battery has been know for decades if not centuries.

You are basically reading newspapaers with articles written by people who have only one interest and that is selling papers - they have to present this sort of stuff as breakthrough.

every comment you make shows how little you grasp the overall situation and how lacking in knowledge on this subject you are.

[katabeachbum]

On a different tack - Contrary to some beliefs on this thread, battery technology has NOT come on in leaps and bounds, despite massive investment - not just from the motor industry but several other industries too - (mobile phones for one)..THere is a problem here that has yet to be solved - energy stored versus weight.

In 1986 the battery to my mobilephone was 5 kg and lasted less than 12 hours. a backpack was needed to use it out of car:rolleyes:

in 1987 it was only 4 kg and lasted more than 12 hours, and it had become handheld

in 1993 it was 500 G (half kg) and lasted more than 24 hours, and it was pocketsize

in 2010 its 20 G and lasts for a week, and is smaller than my creditcard

in 25 years batteries have reduced size and weight. they are not made of the same materials any more, they can be charged at any time and full in very short time, and their efficiency compared to weight and size is 200 times it was 25 years ago.

battery technology has developed. this is the battery tech most electric cars use. if there are buyers to existing hybrids/el cars, they will develop further very rapidly

fossile fuel cars still use leadacid at +20 kg to start up and store

Unfortunately none of this will enable a lightweight electric car!THis is not breakthrough - the physics behind a battery has been know for decades if not centuries.

You are basically reading newspapaers with articles written by people who have only one interest and that is selling papers - they have to present this sort of stuff as breakthrough.

every comment you make shows how little you grasp the overall situation and how lacking in knowledge on this subject you are.

deeral, boring to post in threads with you, cause you assume something (wrong) about posters all the time

never seen any of my mobilephones in the newspapers, neither the first I bought in 1986 or the last a year ago.

there is no doubt batterys evolving from lead/acid as was common until 2 decades ago and still is common when prise is first priority, to Nickel Cadmium, to Nickel Metalhybrid and its followers new tech, has reduced size and weight of electric power storage. needed in phones, needed in electric cars

not to mention the price of these batteries, its dropped to a fraction of what they cost a decade ago

Edited October 16, 2010 by katabeachbum

[Deeral]

Again you state the obvious and draw the wrong conclusions! you really don't understand how to read critically and analyze what you've googled up.

I can't argue a point here as you don't understand the basis of putting forward an argument.it's like banging one's head against a brick wall - you are so obtuse. I've noted that NOWHERE in this thread has anyone countered any of my posts directly. There have been "facts" -uninterpreted - that are tangential to the topic, there are misused clips taken from google without fullty understanding what they mean but not one thing that actually contradicts anythin I've proposed.

And the darnedest thing - you really can't see that. THis is noe of the dimmest threads I've ever been one. I suppose if you talk about "cars" you get that sort of poster?

Edited October 16, 2010 by Deeral

[katabeachbum]

Again you state the obvious and draw the wrong conclusions! you really don't understand how to read critically and analyze what you've googled up.

I can't argue a point here as you don't understand the basis of putting forward an argument.it's like banging one's head against a brick wall - you are so obtuse. I've noted that NOWHERE in this thread has anyone countered any of my posts directly. There have been "facts" -uninterpreted - that are tangential to the topic, there are misused clips taken from google without fullty understanding what they mean but not one thing that actually contradicts anythin I've proposed.

And the darnedest thing - you really can't see that. THis is noe of the dimmest threads I've ever been one. I suppose if you talk about "cars" you get that sort of poster?

your first edit 3 minutes after posting wasnt sufficient to make your post understandable or who you are adressing. care to try again:lol:

[Deeral]

Again you state the obvious and draw the wrong conclusions! you really don't understand how to read critically and analyze what you've googled up.

I can't argue a point here as you don't understand the basis of putting forward an argument.it's like banging one's head against a brick wall - you are so obtuse. I've noted that NOWHERE in this thread has anyone countered any of my posts directly. There have been "facts" -uninterpreted - that are tangential to the topic, there are misused clips taken from google without fullty understanding what they mean but not one thing that actually contradicts anythin I've proposed.

And the darnedest thing - you really can't see that. THis is noe of the dimmest threads I've ever been one. I suppose if you talk about "cars" you get that sort of poster?

your first edit 3 minutes after posting wasnt sufficient to make your post understandable or who you are adressing. care to try again:lol:

As i said - i don't expect you to understandI do expect you to post the kind of "sentence" you just have - unintelligible.

By definition it would therefore not be a sentence.

[Deeral]

I spellcheck only if I consider those I'm posting to a worth it - others I don't bother. But it does underline my point that someone who thinks that "sayonse" is a word also can't make out correctly spelled words with spacing errors or typos. It just shows what we're up against..

I wonder what you'd make of theManchester "Grauniad"????

[Tywais]

This topic is getting derailed and running circular arguments and becoming inflammatory. Please get back on topic and stop the bickering. As for spelling ...

3. If possible please proofread your post first, poor grammar and spelling can make the post difficult to understand. However be aware that not every member is a native english speaker and excessive posts regarding others spelling and grammar not only hijacks the topic but is poor netiquette.

Forum Netiquette