The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: MooseFET on 24 Sep 2007 09:30 On Sep 24, 1:51 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > BradGuth wrote: > > On Sep 23, 7:41 pm, ChairmanOfTheBored <RUBo...(a)crackasmile.org> > > wrote: > > > On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 20:25:18 -0000, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >On Sep 22, 5:48 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)My- > > > >Web-Site.com> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 23:06:46 -0000,BradGuth<bradg...(a)gmail.com> > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> >On Sep 22, 1:29 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> > > > >> >wrote: > > > >> >>BradGuthwrote: > > > >> >> > Luck has little if anything to do with those regular laws of physics, > > > >> >> > although the R&D science of getting this 100 empg Hummer or the 200 > > > >> >> > empg GM Volt into the dumbfounded hands of the typical village idiot > > > >> >> > end-user is going to require some degree of luck. > > > > >> >> The 'regular laws of physics' are going to prevent both of those ever happening. > > > > >> >> Graham > > > > >> >Arnt you being a silly brown-nosed clown again, and for otherwise > > > >> >being stuck in that land of naysayism, as representing your one and > > > >> >only status quo norm. > > > > >> >Some of us are sharing about getting the most clean and best possible > > > >> >empg per given volume or mass of fossil fuel, such as for using that > > > >> >fossil fuel along with h2o2 instead of badly burning our polluted > > > >> >atmosphere that's mostly N2. What the naysay puck on a stick are you > > > >> >thinking of? > > > >> >- Brad Guth - > > > > >> Methinks Brad proves that ignorance IS an excuse. > > > > >Methinks you're another brown-noed minion of the Third Reich, or > > > >perhaps of something far worse since you folks continually claim to > > > >know all there is to know, and then some. > > > >- Brad Guth - > > > > Let's just say that you are not providing us with any breakthrough, > > > startlingly "new" information, dumbass. > > > That is true, because those related laws of physics certainly haven't > > changed, and there's not really any new and improved science from the > > past few decades. > > > In other words, the h2o2 + whatever fuel combinations are still the > > same, still capable of offering a zero NOx and minimal CO2 exhaust, > > and still capable of getting 100 empg on behalf of that hybrid Hummer, > > or 200 empg from that GM Volt. > > Where are the calculations ? > > 100 mpg Hummers are simply NOT possible. At 15 MPH with tires so hard they ring, it is. The main problem with the Hummer on the highway is that it is less streamlined than a brick.
From: BradGuth on 24 Sep 2007 11:03 On Sep 23, 9:20 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 03:50:28 -0000, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >On Sep 23, 7:41 pm, ChairmanOfTheBored <RUBo...(a)crackasmile.org> > >wrote: > >> On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 20:25:18 -0000, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >On Sep 22, 5:48 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)My- > >> >Web-Site.com> wrote: > >> >> On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 23:06:46 -0000,BradGuth<bradg...(a)gmail.com> > >> >> wrote: > > >> >> >On Sep 22, 1:29 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> > >> >> >wrote: > >> >> >>BradGuthwrote: > >> >> >> > Luck has little if anything to do with those regular laws of physics, > >> >> >> > although the R&D science of getting this 100 empg Hummer or the 200 > >> >> >> > empg GM Volt into the dumbfounded hands of the typical village idiot > >> >> >> > end-user is going to require some degree of luck. > > >> >> >> The 'regular laws of physics' are going to prevent both of those ever happening. > > >> >> >> Graham > > >> >> >Arnt you being a silly brown-nosed clown again, and for otherwise > >> >> >being stuck in that land of naysayism, as representing your one and > >> >> >only status quo norm. > > >> >> >Some of us are sharing about getting the most clean and best possible > >> >> >empg per given volume or mass of fossil fuel, such as for using that > >> >> >fossil fuel along with h2o2 instead of badly burning our polluted > >> >> >atmosphere that's mostly N2. What the naysay puck on a stick are you > >> >> >thinking of? > >> >> >- Brad Guth - > > >> >> Methinks Brad proves that ignorance IS an excuse. > > >> >Methinks you're another brown-noed minion of the Third Reich, or > >> >perhaps of something far worse since you folks continually claim to > >> >know all there is to know, and then some. > >> >- Brad Guth - > > >> Let's just say that you are not providing us with any breakthrough, > >> startlingly "new" information, dumbass. > > >That is true, because those related laws of physics certainly haven't > >changed, and there's not really any new and improved science from the > >past few decades. > > >In other words, the h2o2 + whatever fuel combinations are still the > >same, still capable of offering a zero NOx and minimal CO2 exhaust, > > Conventional piston engines don't make obnoxious amounts of nitrogen > oxides. Seems to me that H2O2 is an awfully inefficient way to get > oxygen, when it's free for the asking all around us. > > H2O2 is a damned expensive way to transport oxygen. And aluminum is a > damned expensive way to transport electricity. You folks still can't think inside or much less outside the box, can you. > > >and still capable of getting 100 empg on behalf of that hybrid Hummer, > >or 200 empg from that GM Volt. Just exactly like the clean energy > >extracted from the sun, wind or whatever hydroelectrics including > >tidal derived energy is still representing the same old clean and > >renewable energy on behalf of delivering multiple teraWatts (as many > >as you'd like), just as it was capable of accomplishing such as of > >decades ago. > > Explain to us what is the relationship between H2O2 and all those > terawatts of clean, cheap energy. Since we're engineers, some numbers > would be appreciated. > > Wild idea breakthroughs are a staple around here. The burden of proof > is on the presenter, to explain why it might work and then to explain > why it isn't already being done. Sorry, conspiracy theories are not > accepted. I've posted such numbers dozens of times, and your PC or MAC can otherwise search for and thus uncover all the fancy numbers you'd care to review. However, from time to time I'll edit and thereby revise upon a given application. What is it about the clean and renewable 40 kw/m2 of a given tower footprint of solar and wind derived energy do you not understand? If not for the makings of h2o2 and aluminum, what else would you smart folks do with a spare teraWatt of energy? How else would you go about burning coal at it's peak efficiency without water, at minimal CO2 and without causing NOx? BTW, here's a wild idea breakthrough: A piston engine of 4 cycles is about as mechanically inefficient of an IC enigne as it gets, and the burning of a mostly N2 atmosphere is every bit as dumbfounded physics on steroids as it gets, and the last time I'd checked that's no conspiracy theory. - Brad Guth -
From: Uncle Al on 24 Sep 2007 11:14 BradGuth wrote: [snip] > The all electric car is technically doable, although having even a > small onboard ICE for the minimal cruising needs of sustaining 60+ mph > might represent a good compromise, especially if it's contributing > zero NOx and minimal CO2 at a hybrid usage of 200 empg per fossil fuel > usage. [snip] 1) Thermodynamics. 2) Chemistry. 3) Idiot. Dr. Schund proposes a pop bottle-sized 13.4 gigawatt electrical generator - and Dr. Schund has numbers on his side, unlike Brad Guth. http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/htoo.htm -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
From: BradGuth on 24 Sep 2007 11:15 On Sep 23, 9:13 pm, The Ghost In The Machine <ew...(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote: > > And the creation of H2O2 is done precisely how, again? > Clearly this is the fuel of the future (if one can deal > with the fact that it's highly explosive, but that's a > technical detail), but can neither be harvested from plants > nor extracted from minerals without some sort of process. > I'd like to know the details thereof, if you don't mind. You've been off-world again, haven't you. Which "The Ghost In The Machine" is it this time around? What part of a 40 kw/m2 worth of tower footprint is way over your head? Haven't you ever heard of Warren Buffett, or physics? If enough h2o2 is created via renewable energy that's every bit as squeaky clean as solar, wind, tidal and geothermal, then where's all the nasty pollution you speak of coming from? BTW, you don't really recharge the h2o2/aluminum battery. It's more like a fuel cell of stored energy, and actually lots of it per kg. - Brad Guth -
From: John Larkin on 24 Sep 2007 11:19
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 15:03:49 -0000, BradGuth <bradguth(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Wild idea breakthroughs are a staple around here. The burden of proof >> is on the presenter, to explain why it might work and then to explain >> why it isn't already being done. Sorry, conspiracy theories are not >> accepted. > >I've posted such numbers dozens of times, and your PC or MAC can >otherwise search for and thus uncover all the fancy numbers you'd care >to review. However, from time to time I'll edit and thereby revise >upon a given application. OK, refresh my memory: if we convert aluminum oxide to metallic aluminum by electrolytic smelting, and convert the aluminum back to electricity in a Al-H2O2 battery, what's the net efficiency? And for each KWH of delivered energy, how much H2O2 do we need, how much did it cost, and how much energy did it take to make it? > >What is it about the clean and renewable 40 kw/m2 of a given tower >footprint of solar and wind derived energy do you not understand? Tower footprints can be arbitrarily small; it's what's hung on the top of the tower that costs. > >If not for the makings of h2o2 and aluminum, what else would you smart >folks do with a spare teraWatt of energy? Energy is not measured in terawatts. And I'm not aware of any "spare" power of terawatt magnitude. If we had terawatts of clean, cheap "spare" power, why wouldn't we use it to power the electric grid, saving a lot of coal and natural gas? > >How else would you go about burning coal at it's peak efficiency >without water, at minimal CO2 and without causing NOx? > >BTW, here's a wild idea breakthrough: >A piston engine of 4 cycles is about as mechanically inefficient of an >IC enigne as it gets, and the burning of a mostly N2 atmosphere is >every bit as dumbfounded physics on steroids as it gets, and the last >time I'd checked that's no conspiracy theory. Piston engines haven't changes fundamentally in 100 years, despite lots of challenges from turbines, Sterling monstrosities, various weird rotary engines, steam, fuel cells, whatever. That's pretty impressive. Still pistons, rings, cranks, cams, poppet valves, spark plugs. John |