The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 25 Sep 2007 22:48 BradGuth wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > BradGuth wrote: > > > Eeyore wrote: > > > > > > Where are the calculations ? > > > > > > 100 mpg Hummers are simply NOT possible. > > > > > Obviously a relatively small fuel-cell like battery of h2o2/aluminum > > > is offering terrific energy density, as being currently doable as is. > > > > Terrific 'energy density' doesn't affect the total amount of energy required to move a Hummer > > you ignorant fathead. > > > > The energy needed to propel a Hummer will never be in the '100 mpg' region because of > > fundamental laws of physics, notably those relating to drag. > > > Your insurmountable naysayism and total lack of offering up any such > constructive alternatives or merely the slightest improvements in your > stay-the-course and status quuo or bust mindset is fully noted. You insurmountable ignorance of science is fully noted. Uneducated (ineducable in fact) fatheads like you are worthless scum. You deserve to be rendered for use as bio-fuel. Graham
From: BradGuth on 25 Sep 2007 22:49 On Sep 25, 7:02 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:28:58 -0700, bill <ford_prefec...(a)hotmail.com> > wrote: > > >> 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 > > > now you've done it, you have blasphemed about guth's god of h2o2, > >any mention of the serious and severe dangers with handling, > >manufacture and storage of high purity h2o2 provoke full armed > >responses from that particular stupid freak. > > And it still sounds line an insanely inefficient way to transport > oxygen for combustion. Not to mention dangerous. > > Still, it's interesting. > > John Insane is a good sign, as it means there's something worth doing unless you're a wuss. Question; are we trying to minimize pollution as well as the use of fossil fuels, or not? - Brad Guth -
From: Eeyore on 25 Sep 2007 22:52 krw wrote: > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > 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. > > You think the electricity to drive the valves will come free? Don't be so ridiculous. > You're going to save energy by converting that mechanical energy to > electricity and then drive a motor to the valve? Michael was right. > You are 1% as smart as a fence post, though I think he was being > kind. The fact of the matter is that electric valve operation is being very seriously researched. It offers huge advantages in terms of variable valve timing of course. http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/application.jsp?nodeId=02Wcbf56hRCrcd Your ignorance in this matter is NO surprise. Mind you, Americans do like doing things in 'old fashioned' ways. Tell me all about your push-rod engines won't you ? How fast do they rev before bounce kills them ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 25 Sep 2007 22:55 BradGuth wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > BradGuth wrote: > > > Eeyore wrote: > > > > MooseFET wrote: > > > > > > > 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 Guth doesn't seem to understand the problems about ICE efficiency. > > > > > Thanks for those honest enough numbers. However, add quality silicon > > > enhanced tires, > > > > Bollocks. No such thing. You're just making stuff up. Besides, the rolling resistance is a small > > proportion of the total drag. You could of course fit SOLID wheels but the ride would be a bit harsh > > ! > > > > > give that brick of a Hummer a high energy density > > > battery/fuel-cell, feed it and that little one-cycle efficient engine > > > with h2o2 plus whatever fossil derived fuel (such as common diesel > > > road fuel) for accommodating the little ICE, and say it again, KT. > > > > That will not affect the energy required. So your 100 mpg claim is quite simply barking mad. > > Once again, Sir ExxonMobil, up yours. Your lack of answer/meaningful response is noted. Quite simply, science tells us the truth about your daft suggestions. Your ridiculous 'ideas' are quite frankly no more use than PIGSWILL. Graham
From: Eeyore on 25 Sep 2007 22:56
BradGuth wrote: > Question; are we trying to minimize pollution as well as the use of > fossil fuels, or not? Manufacturing huge quantitites of aluminium and hydrogen peroxide will pollute the planet like nothing you've seen before. Graham |