The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: Rich Grise on 24 Sep 2007 15:17 On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 01:26:19 +0100, Eeyore wrote: > BradGuth wrote: >> Eeyore wrote: >> > BradGuth wrote: >> > > 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. >> >> 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. > > I suggest you find out the frontal area and drag coefficient of a Hummer, > plus its weight and rolling resistance. > > If you had the ability to do the required 'sums' I'm sure you'll find that > the power required to propel it under a typical driving regime will never > allow '100 mpg' or its equivalent. Ditto for 200 mpg and the Volt. > Yeah, but does he have enough money to build one for a demonstration? Thanks, Rich
From: Rich Grise on 24 Sep 2007 15:22 On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 08:19:12 -0700, John Larkin wrote: > On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 15:03:49 -0000, BradGuth <bradguth(a)gmail.com> wrote: .... >>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. I've heard that someone has even tried electric valves, but it didn't fly for some reason. Cheers! Rich
From: Eeyore on 24 Sep 2007 15:31 Rich Grise wrote: > John Larkin wrote: > > BradGuth <bradguth(a)gmail.com> wrote: > ... > >>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. > > I've heard that someone has even tried electric valves, but it didn't > fly for some reason. Expect to see more of that. The idea is to reduce power consumption. The load on the cambelt or chain is quite significant. Graham
From: John Larkin on 24 Sep 2007 16:10 On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:54:00 -0000, BradGuth <bradguth(a)gmail.com> wrote: >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? Of course it matters. Which entity, private or public, that has a source of electrical energy, will elect to throw it away at, say, 20% efficiency, when they can sell it on the open market, for whatever is the going price? > >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? No. As I suspected, you are yet another dreamer who imagines all the wonderful things we could do if energy were free. It ain't. > >> >> 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. No, you have the idea, and are flogging it to a bunch of engineers. Show us some numbers. But of course, you can't. > >What is it about spare/surplus clean energy that you do not >understand? It doesn't exist, which makes it a lot harder to 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. Solar energy is low density and is only on during the day, in good weather. There are no commercially viable solar-electric capture technologies in existance today, other than for niche and novelty applications, like satellites and emergency call boxes. If solar electric generation became feasible some day, its first priority would be daytime peaking generation, which it's ideally suited for. If vehicles were electrically powered, via batteries or your aluminum thing, the power would be used night-time, off-peak, and hence not solar. > >> >> >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. We're engineers: our job is to change things. What separates you from us is that we actually do it, and our stuff works. John
From: John Larkin on 24 Sep 2007 16:15
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 11:46:18 -0700, BradGuth <bradguth(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Sep 24, 10:16 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> >wrote: >> BradGuthwrote: >> > John Larkin wrote: >> >> > > 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? >> >> Aluminium smelting ISN'T squeaky clean however. > >There's no such thing as any ideal or safe energy, as even >hydroelectric dams and soon enough He3 fusion has it's negatives of >environment impacting considerations, similar to the nuclear option >that's rather chuck full of somewhat testy negatives once the all- >inclusive and full birth-to-grave aspects are taken fully into >account, though still much better off than burning coal that's about >as dark-age pathetic derived energy with horrific consequences as it >gets. > >On a scale of 1-10, h2o2/aluminum and h2o2/fossil are each right up >there as being one of the good guys, especially once most of the >required energy for producing and/or processing either of those items >into consumer energy products is derived freom the 100% renewable >technology of energy that's squeaky clean as can be accomplished >without our having to cause such collateral damage or kill off more of >those innocent folks in the process. One of the major by-products of electrolytic aluminum smelting is CO2! Look it up. I don't know much about the energetics of making H2O2, but it seems like a damned silly way to transport oxygen, when air is free. So your obsession isn't aluminum, it's H2O2? Wild. John |