The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: Bill Ward on 25 Sep 2007 15:36 On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 07:00:11 -0700, MooseFET wrote: > On Sep 24, 8:35 pm, bill <ford_prefec...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> On Sep 24, 7:22 pm, Punjab The Sailor Man <boobooililili...(a)yahoo.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > BradGuth wrote: >> > > On Aug 8, 5:47 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> On Jul 28, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >>>>>> This is another reason why hybrids make more sense. Pure EVs >> > >>>>>> have too many limitations. >> > >>>>> If they could recharge in 10 mins, the US power grid would burn >> > >>>>> out >> > >>>> What about these? >> > >>>>http://altairnano.com/markets_amps.html >> > >>> Shockingly expensive. $75,000 per vehicle just for batteries. >> > >>>http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/07/altair_nanotech.html >> > >> Expensive, who cares? We're talking about the ENVIRONMENT, we >> > >> can't worry about filty lucre. What are you, a greedy Republican? >> >> > >> Let the gov't fund it, won't cost a farthing! That's why we need >> > >> visionaries like Al Gore, bold men not afraid to take on the >> > >> special interests, leading by example. >> >> > > I agree. What else is our government good for, if not to impress us >> > > with all of it's wizardly expertise and can-do mindset. - >> >> > > 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. >> >> > > The Electric Car / sci.electronics.design >> > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.design/browse_frm/thre... >> > > On Sep 22, 5:26 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> >> > > wrote: >> > >> BradGuthwrote: >> > >>> Eeyore 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. >> > >>> 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. >> >> > > Double ditto right back at you, as I've been there and done that. >> > > Of course double-ditto-duh once again, as it's hybrid city or local >> > > commute empg, and having replaced our mostly N2 atmosphere with that >> > > robust fluid of h2o2, so that we obtain the most clean energy and >> > > best amount of bang per gallon of whatever fossil or biofuel, is >> > > actually accomplished within existing physics and doable technology. >> >> > > I believe the mass ratio is something like roughly 7:1 up to 7.2:1 >> > > for h2o2/c12h26 (hydrogen peroxide / kerosene or RP-1), a little >> > > better on certain heavier fuel oils such as diesel No.2 and perhaps >> > > nearly as good enough with plain old gasoline, and a bit worse off >> > > with certain biofuels, though all dual fuel injected and 100% >> > > computer controlled (of course), so that your little zero NOx engine >> > > for that hybrid Hummer or GM Volt can safely mix and match to almost >> > > any combination of fossil and biofuels as your heart desires. >> > >http://www.dunnspace.com/alternate_ssto_propellants.htm >> >> > > We're also talking about a fairly small radial turbine or some other >> > > rotary efficient engine that's driving a direct coupled high speed >> > > alternator. I suppose you've got those insurmountable problems with >> > > that as well. >> >> > > What's your sorry excuse for being such an all-knowing naysay stick >> > > in the mud? >> > > - Brad Guth - >> >> > How about a propane hybrid? >> >> Please don't feed the troll. Guth is a stupid freak, and >> replying to him is pissing in the wind. > > What I don't get is why he is spending all this time on H2O2. NeO4 is > harder to make and store but has a lot more energy per pound. If you had > a tank full of it, you could get 200MPG out of a Hummer. Wouldn't that be rated in square miles per gallon?
From: John Larkin on 25 Sep 2007 16:31 On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 05:29:58 -0000, BradGuth <bradguth(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Sep 24, 4:22 pm, Punjab The Sailor Man <boobooililili...(a)yahoo.com> >wrote: >> BradGuth wrote: >> > On Aug 8, 5:47 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> On Jul 28, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>>>>> This is another reason why hybrids make more sense. Pure EVs >> >>>>>> have too many limitations. >> >>>>> If they could recharge in 10 mins, the US power grid would burn out >> >>>> What about these? >> >>>>http://altairnano.com/markets_amps.html >> >>> Shockingly expensive. $75,000 per vehicle just for batteries. >> >>>http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/07/altair_nanotech.html >> >> Expensive, who cares? We're talking about the >> >> ENVIRONMENT, we can't worry about filty lucre. >> >> What are you, a greedy Republican? >> >> >> Let the gov't fund it, won't cost a farthing! That's >> >> why we need visionaries like Al Gore, bold men >> >> not afraid to take on the special interests, leading >> >> by example. >> >> > I agree. What else is our government good for, if not to impress us >> > with all of it's wizardly expertise and can-do mindset. >> > - >> >> > 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. >> >> > The Electric Car / sci.electronics.design >> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.design/browse_frm/thre... >> > On Sep 22, 5:26 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> >> > wrote: >> >> BradGuthwrote: >> >>> Eeyore 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. >> >>> 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. >> >> > Double ditto right back at you, as I've been there and done that. Of >> > course double-ditto-duh once again, as it's hybrid city or local >> > commute empg, and having replaced our mostly N2 atmosphere with that >> > robust fluid of h2o2, so that we obtain the most clean energy and best >> > amount of bang per gallon of whatever fossil or biofuel, is actually >> > accomplished within existing physics and doable technology. >> >> > I believe the mass ratio is something like roughly 7:1 up to 7.2:1 for >> > h2o2/c12h26 (hydrogen peroxide / kerosene or RP-1), a little better on >> > certain heavier fuel oils such as diesel No.2 and perhaps nearly as >> > good enough with plain old gasoline, and a bit worse off with certain >> > biofuels, though all dual fuel injected and 100% computer controlled >> > (of course), so that your little zero NOx engine for that hybrid >> > Hummer or GM Volt can safely mix and match to almost any combination >> > of fossil and biofuels as your heart desires. >> >http://www.dunnspace.com/alternate_ssto_propellants.htm >> >> > We're also talking about a fairly small radial turbine or some other >> > rotary efficient engine that's driving a direct coupled high speed >> > alternator. I suppose you've got those insurmountable problems with >> > that as well. >> >> > What's your sorry excuse for being such an all-knowing naysay stick in >> > the mud? >> > - Brad Guth - >> >> How about a propane hybrid? > >Propane and h2o2 is perfectly fine and dandy, as the given hybrid car, >suv or Hummer could manage to operate rather nicely on both at the >same time, because there's a lot of clean energy in h2o2/propane to >work with. >- Brad Guth - Propane and air would be even better. Propane piston engines are very clean and very reliable, rately even needing oil changes. The shorter the aliphatic chain, the more energy is delivered by hydrogen and the less delivered by carbon. Given that methane is kinda hard to store, propane (C3H8) or butane (C4H10) are good choices, if only we had an economical way to manufacture them. H2O2 sounds like nasty, dangerous, expensive stuff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_peroxide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_peroxide#Hazards "The saying is 'peroxides kill chemists'" John
From: John Larkin on 25 Sep 2007 16:53 On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 05:10:35 -0000, BradGuth <bradguth(a)gmail.com> wrote: >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. Our environment is not "badly failing." That makes for good TV news, and political fund-raising, but it's not really happening. Ah, you have The One And Only Answer to The Salvation of the Earth. What's the word for that, messiah? > 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? Well, here are some not-hidden messages: 1. Climate has always changed. 2. Manmade CO2 hasn't been proven to be the cause of current warming, if indeed there is unusual warming, beyond natural cycles. 3. If we are going to have more CO2 and higher temps, it's not necessarily bad. It may well be good, on balance. 4. We *are* going to pump all the available oil and gas out of the ground and burn it. Get used to that. 5. If we want to keep crud out of the air, we should avoid coal and tar sands. The best available technology is nukes. 6. Solar PV may be economical some day, but there's still the energy storage problem. Solar is far from free. Solar thermal generation is absurd. 7. Electricity is far too valuable as electricity to waste it by converting it at low efficiency into other energy storage media. 8. Petrochemicals are far too valuable as motor vehicle fuels and chemical feedstocks to waste producing inefficient stuff like hydrogen. 9. Things that work made it to the top of the heap because they work. 10. The engineering mindset is to design new things, but things that work. 11. H2O2 is nasty, dangerous, expensive, silly stuff. John
From: John Larkin on 25 Sep 2007 17:00 On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 05:56:54 -0000, BradGuth <bradguth(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Sep 24, 8:20 pm, JosephKK <joseph_barr...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> BradGuth bradg...(a)gmail.com posted to sci.electronics.design: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Sep 24, 10:05 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> >> > wrote: >> >> John Larkin wrote: >> >> >BradGuthwrote: >> >> >> > >> 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. >> >> > I guess you know lots more than most of us village idiots, as to >> > where that 64,000+ teraWatts of solar energy is going, along with >> > the 7.2e20 kw that's continually existing somewhere between us and >> > our moon, not to mention terrestrial wind that's seriously kicking >> > our AGW butts, plus tidal flows and geothermal energy that's clearly >> > for the taking by those half as smart as Warren Buffett, and that's >> > only demanding that you be 1% as smart as our resident LLPOF >> > warlord(GW Bush). >> >> > Are you saying thar Eeyore and company isn't 1% as smart as GW Bush? >> >> >> At which point of course he simply shows himself to be a clueless >> >> IDIOT. >> >> > At least the mindset of this supposed "clueless IDIOT" hasn't >> > imposed or otherwise caused any collateral damage or carnage of the >> > innocent. How about your energy sucking and global polluting self? >> > - Brad Guth - >> >> Well, hell, there you go throwing some large numbers around. where do >> they come from? Do you even know? Where did you get 64,000 >> terawatts? Where did you get 7.2E20 kW? - Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > >physics and math, pretty much works each and every time unless you're >stuck with having to use some hocus-pocus conditional physics that >doesn't take little pesky things like the actual truth into account. > >64,000 teraWatts of terrestrial solar energy is conservative. There's >actually lots more solar energy that doesn't manage to get >sufficiently through our polluted plus somewhat wet and reflective >atmosphere, so perhaps as such it doesn't hardly count. Of orbital >physics that relates to working against the mutual pull of gravity is >exactly what it is. In the case of the Earth/moon consideration it's >worth roughly 2e20 joules per each and every second, and the last time >I'd checked there were still 3600 of them seconds per hour. >- Brad Guth - How might one harness the moon's kinetic energy, other than tide power? What's the 2e20 joules/sec represent? How much the moon loses to tidal forces, ocean tides and heating the earth/moon crusts? Imagine a gigantic weight, mounted on springs, that wiggles around roughly once a day, driven by the moon's gravitation. Couple that motion to a generator. Do the math. Of course, we'd eventually slow down the moon, and it would start clipping off the tops of mountains and cell-phone towers. John
From: Robert Adsett on 25 Sep 2007 18:07
In article <46F8E113.D8A821F1(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore says... > > > BradGuth wrote: > > > 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 My. So I take it Brad can live without the nutrients and oxygen generated by the ecosystem's use of the sun's energy? > > 'Earth Moon energy' is another of Brad's psychotic delusions. Well, there is energy in the orbital system and some tidal power systems have been built to extract some. Even if it were possible you wouldn't want to take a significant fraction of the energy out of the system. Imagine the consequences! Robert -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |