The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: BradGuth on 25 Sep 2007 01:10 On Sep 24, 1:10 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:54:00 -0000, BradGuth <bradg...(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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Are your intellectual status quo farts still unable to get out? Your naysayism is very Third Reich, you know. All that you've suggested was technically accomplished as of 200 years ago, or more. The laws of physics and the best available science are 100% on my side of this rant, including the one and only salvation of our badly failing environment is what I'm proposing. You and others of your kind are proposing absolutely nothing other than to stay the sooty fossil consuming and NOx + CO2 producing course. Is there a hidden message somewhere within that mindset of yours? - Brad Guth -
From: BradGuth on 25 Sep 2007 01:14 On Sep 24, 1:15 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 11:46:18 -0700, BradGuth <bradg...(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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - You folks need to speak with a good Jewish Third Reich wizard, about those makings of aluminum and h2o2, then speak with Warren Buffett about clean energy by which to make damn near everything under the sun happen with spare/surplus energy to boot. - Brad Guth -
From: BradGuth on 25 Sep 2007 01:17 On Sep 24, 3:06 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 11:49:48 -0700, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > >On Sep 24, 11:26 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> > >wrote: > >> BradGuthwrote: > >> > Eeyore wrote: > > >> > > 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. > > >> > Your insurmountable naysayism is noted. > > >> What I have stated are insurmountable FACTS ! > > >Your "insurmountable FACTS" are fully supported by your ExxonMobil > >partners in crimes against humanity, and they do very much thank you > >from the very bottoms of their little sooty black hearts. > > Conspiracy theory. Goofy inventions always end in a conspiracy theory. > > John- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - So, the regular laws of physics and the best available science are now by way of your standards a "conspiracy theory"? - Brad Guth -
From: BradGuth on 25 Sep 2007 01:23 On Sep 24, 4:09 pm, Robert Adsett <s...(a)aeolusdevelopment.com> wrote: > In article <1190652840.452812.163...(a)r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > BradGuth says... > > > 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. > > Going to waste? It's maintaining life on this planet, something I'm > rather attached to myself. The 0.0001% of solar energy and the 0.0000001% of the Earth/moon energy is in fact sustaining some limited portion on behalf the likes of your pathetic life, and not that Earth wouldn't be a whole lot better off without your life. So what about all the other unused clean energy? - Brad Guth -
From: me on 25 Sep 2007 01:21
BradGuth <bradguth(a)gmail.com> wrote in news:1190697035.038016.50610(a)r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: snip >> >> >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. >> 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. >> >> We're engineers: our job is to change things. What separates you from >> us is that we actually do it, and our stuff works. >> >Are your intellectual status quo farts still unable to get out? Your >naysayism is very Third Reich, you know. All that you've suggested >was technically accomplished as of 200 years ago, or more. So it has been lost all these years, or did it take a nut job like you to bring it all together? > >The laws of physics and the best available science are 100% on my side >of this rant, including the one and only salvation of our badly >failing environment is what I'm proposing. You and others of your >kind are proposing absolutely nothing other than to stay the sooty >fossil consuming and NOx + CO2 producing course. Is there a hidden >message somewhere within that mindset of yours? >- Brad Guth - > So build it and save the environment and make Bill Gates look like a pauper, or just go away. (put up or shut up...) ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |