The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 24 Sep 2007 12:52 MooseFET wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > BradGuth wrote: > > > ChairmanOfTheBored wrote: > > > > > > 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. It has a drag area of about 2.5 sq metres. Its 3 1/2 tons results in a fair bit of rolling resistance too. I just calculated the power required to propel it @ 70 mph (the UK national speed limit) as 52kW. That means that 100 miles (at 70 mph) would require 52 x 3600 x 100/70 kJ = 267 MJ Regular gasoline (per Wikipedia) contains 34.8MJ/litre. A US gallon therefore contains 132 MJ. So it would only need a 200% efficient engine *** LOL *** to propel this Hummer at 100 mpg (at 70 mph). Brad Gruth doesn't seem to understand the problems about ICE efficiency. Graham
From: BradGuth on 24 Sep 2007 12:54 On Sep 24, 8:19 am, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 15:03:49 -0000, BradGuth <bradg...(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? What does it matter, if the original resource of those electrons came from a 100% renewable and squeaky clean resource? Isn't 10% of something that's clean and renewable better off than 100% of what's further pillaging, raping and polluting of mother Earth that's anything but renewable? > > 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? It's within the regular laws of physics, and it's on the internet. Go fish. > > >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. Again with all the associated "cost", as though the pillaging and raping of mother Earth, plus the energy wars upon wars and continued polluting are of no cost or future consequences. > > >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? What is it about spare/surplus clean energy that you do not understand? Perhaps you need to speak with wizard Willie Moo, or simply address the 65,000 teraWatts of solar energy influx that's mostly (99.9999%) going to waste, or that of the Earth/moon energy of 2e20 joules that's equally 99.9999999% or greater ignored and/or wasted. > > >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. Then god forbid, don't you folks dare change a damn thing, as there's still ice to melt and our frail environment to trash according to your original plan. - Brad Guth -
From: Eeyore on 24 Sep 2007 12:58 BradGuth wrote: > John Larkin 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 No you haven't. If you were SERIOUS you'd post them on a website instead of expecting people to search (for stupidity and who wants to look for a lload of nonsense). Have you ANY IDEA how difficult it is to trawl through old Usenet posts looking for a 'needle in a haystack' ? In any case your 'numbers' must be wrong. It barely requires high-school grade maths to show that your ideas are completely INSANE. The most important fact is that H2O2 doesn't improve 'mpg'. In fact (taking the total energy burden of manufacturing it) it degrades it. Graham
From: Eeyore on 24 Sep 2007 13:05 John Larkin wrote: > BradGuth 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? Brad Gruth doesn't care about efficiency. In his world there will be limitless FREE solar power to do this. At which point of course he simply shows himself to be a clueless IDIOT. Graham
From: Jim Thompson on 24 Sep 2007 13:06
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:54:00 -0000, BradGuth <bradguth(a)gmail.com> wrote: [snip] > >Then god forbid, don't you folks dare change a damn thing, as there's >still ice to melt and our frail environment to trash according to your >original plan. >- Brad Guth - Naaaah! We only want to trash leftist weenie nutcases ;-) ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | America: Land of the Free, Because of the Brave |