The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: JosephKK on 26 Sep 2007 04:15 BradGuth bradguth(a)gmail.com posted to sci.electronics.design: > 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 - Throwing numbers around again; where do they come from?
From: JosephKK on 26 Sep 2007 04:35 Eeyore rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com posted to sci.electronics.design: > > > 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 Quite a bit less actually.
From: JosephKK on 26 Sep 2007 04:40 Eeyore rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com posted to sci.electronics.design: > > > 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 Correct!
From: Robert Latest on 26 Sep 2007 08:02 John Larkin wrote: > Conventional piston engines don't make obnoxious amounts of nitrogen > oxides. They make plenty, that's what you've got your catalytic converter for. That and the CO. robert
From: Robert Latest on 26 Sep 2007 08:07
John Larkin wrote: > Energy is not measured in terawatts. And I'm not aware of any "spare" > power of terawatt magnitude. If we had terawatts of clean, cheap > "spare" power, why wouldn't we use it to power the electric grid, > saving a lot of coal and natural gas? We have those spare terawatts in the form of solar radiation, but unfortunately those won't turn bauxit into Al or water into H2O2 without some interfacing industry complex. robert |