The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: Jim Thompson on 25 Sep 2007 18:22 On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:07:32 -0400, Robert Adsett <sub2(a)aeolusdevelopment.com> wrote: >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 "Imagine" is not in Brad's capabilities. He's just a parrot of the science fiction magazines. ...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
From: BradGuth on 25 Sep 2007 18:56 On Sep 25, 2:00 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > How might one harness the moon's kinetic energy, other than tide > power? Via the LSE-CM/ISS tether dipole element should give us access to some small percentage of that energy without causing great harm, such as pulling that moon towards Earth might be worth avoiding, especially since it's way too damn close for our own good as it is. BTW, it's not actually orbital kinetic energy, but more like the raw energy of gravity and centripetal related force that's available, as well as to whatever differential of teraVoltage and available amps of electron flow that's worth extracting, and of course that's in addition to whatever's solar and moon combined IR that should also be impressive. > > What's the 2e20 joules/sec represent? The kgf that's converted into terrestrial surface joules worth of what such a 7.35e22 kg orb that's being summarily flung about Earth, as though on the end of an impressive string, that's clearly offset by the mutual gravity of attraction. Obviously all that push-pull and centripetal energy is going somewhere. > How much the moon loses to tidal > forces, ocean tides and heating the earth/moon crusts? I believe the greater tidal force of the sun is actually in charge, and if anything the moon is simply in the process of gaining energy as extracted from Earth, not losing it. If it were losing energy it would be getting closer to us, not further away. So, perhaps just that alone is worth our tapping into. > > 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. That's true enough, as representing multiple teraWatts of perfectly clean energy that's just going to waste. My LSE-CM/ISS and of its dipole element might rather easily take some of that give and take motion into account. > > Of course, we'd eventually slow down the moon, and it would start > clipping off the tops of mountains and cell-phone towers. By then we'd be using the moon itself as a cell-phone tower platform and just as likely living within the moon, although by then it would be a good billion years past the time of our having extracted the very last drop of oil or kg worth of any other nasty fossil fuel, including yellowcake being in damn short supply, there will no longer be any terrestrial magnetosphere, and our sun would be measurably starting in on it's red giant phase. So what's the difference? BTW, I'd first relocate our moon's orbit out to being interactively halo parked within Earth's L1, thereby obtaining 3~3.5% worth of solar isolation, so that such cell-phone tower clipping shouldn't ever get to be a problem. - Brad Guth -
From: BradGuth on 25 Sep 2007 19:01 On Sep 25, 1:42 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > BradGuth wrote: > > > So, the regular laws of physics and the best available science are now > > by way of your standards a "conspiracy theory"? > > The conspiracy is you claiming to know anything, like those phony > bastards who claim to be war vets, but never served. > > You keep spouting off about 'the regular laws of physics' The only > physic you're familiar with is a laxative, which is 'the irregular laws > of physics' > > > - Brad Guth - > > -- > Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to > prove it. > Member of DAV #85. > > Michael A. Terrell MY goodness, another silly Yid like mindset of naysayism that's going usenet postal, instead of simply looking on the positive/constructive bright side of things. - Brad Guth -
From: Jim Thompson on 25 Sep 2007 19:10 On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:56:27 -0700, BradGuth <bradguth(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Sep 25, 2:00 pm, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >> How might one harness the moon's kinetic energy, other than tide >> power? > >Via the LSE-CM/ISS tether dipole element should give us access to some >small percentage of that energy without causing great harm, such as >pulling that moon towards Earth might be worth avoiding, especially >since it's way too damn close for our own good as it is. > >BTW, it's not actually orbital kinetic energy, but more like the raw >energy of gravity and centripetal related force that's available, as >well as to whatever differential of teraVoltage and available amps of >electron flow that's worth extracting, and of course that's in >addition to whatever's solar and moon combined IR that should also be >impressive. > >> >> What's the 2e20 joules/sec represent? >The kgf that's converted into terrestrial surface joules worth of what >such a 7.35e22 kg orb that's being summarily flung about Earth, as >though on the end of an impressive string, that's clearly offset by >the mutual gravity of attraction. Obviously all that push-pull and >centripetal energy is going somewhere. > >> How much the moon loses to tidal >> forces, ocean tides and heating the earth/moon crusts? > >I believe the greater tidal force of the sun is actually in charge, >and if anything the moon is simply in the process of gaining energy as >extracted from Earth, not losing it. If it were losing energy it >would be getting closer to us, not further away. So, perhaps just >that alone is worth our tapping into. > >> >> 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. > >That's true enough, as representing multiple teraWatts of perfectly >clean energy that's just going to waste. My LSE-CM/ISS and of its >dipole element might rather easily take some of that give and take >motion into account. > >> >> Of course, we'd eventually slow down the moon, and it would start >> clipping off the tops of mountains and cell-phone towers. > >By then we'd be using the moon itself as a cell-phone tower platform >and just as likely living within the moon, although by then it would >be a good billion years past the time of our having extracted the very >last drop of oil or kg worth of any other nasty fossil fuel, including >yellowcake being in damn short supply, there will no longer be any >terrestrial magnetosphere, and our sun would be measurably starting in >on it's red giant phase. So what's the difference? > >BTW, I'd first relocate our moon's orbit out to being interactively >halo parked within Earth's L1, thereby obtaining 3~3.5% worth of solar >isolation, so that such cell-phone tower clipping shouldn't ever get >to be a problem. >- Brad Guth - So stop just running off at the mouth and build a demo model. If you're right, you'll be a hero. If you're wrong, you'll be a laughing-stock... in other words, no change from right now ;-) ...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
From: John Larkin on 25 Sep 2007 19:14
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:56:27 -0700, BradGuth <bradguth(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Sep 25, 2:00 pm, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >> How might one harness the moon's kinetic energy, other than tide >> power? > >Via the LSE-CM/ISS tether dipole element should give us access to some >small percentage of that energy without causing great harm, such as >pulling that moon towards Earth might be worth avoiding, especially >since it's way too damn close for our own good as it is. OMG, tethers now! > >BTW, it's not actually orbital kinetic energy, but more like the raw >energy of gravity and centripetal related force Force isn't energy. Gravity isn't energy. Only energy is energy. We don't seem to be making progress here. > that's available, as >well as to whatever differential of teraVoltage and available amps of >electron flow that's worth extracting, and of course that's in >addition to whatever's solar and moon combined IR that should also be >impressive. > >> >> What's the 2e20 joules/sec represent? >The kgf that's converted into terrestrial surface joules worth of what >such a 7.35e22 kg orb that's being summarily flung about Earth, as >though on the end of an impressive string, that's clearly offset by >the mutual gravity of attraction. Obviously all that push-pull and >centripetal energy is going somewhere. > >> How much the moon loses to tidal >> forces, ocean tides and heating the earth/moon crusts? > >I believe the greater tidal force of the sun is actually in charge, >and if anything the moon is simply in the process of gaining energy as >extracted from Earth, not losing it. If it were losing energy it >would be getting closer to us, not further away. So, perhaps just >that alone is worth our tapping into. You didn't answer my question: What does 2e20 joules/sec (what we dumb engineers would call "watts") represent? How is that number arrived at? >> >> 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. > >That's true enough, as representing multiple teraWatts of perfectly >clean energy that's just going to waste. My LSE-CM/ISS and of its >dipole element might rather easily take some of that give and take >motion into account. My proposal was sarcastic. You'd have seen that instantly if you could do the math. John |