The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: Charlie Edmondson on 26 Sep 2007 12:33 JosephKK wrote: > 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. > Yeah, don't insult good, quality pigswill that helps raise good bacon by comparing it with Barkin' Braddies nonsense! Charlie
From: BradGuth on 26 Sep 2007 14:02 On Sep 26, 7:58 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > BradGuthwrote: > > Say again how much the likes of ExxonMobil is paying you > > The usual idiotic response. > > Graham I'll agree and/or argue along with your opening mindset, that a hybrid is the one and only viable alternative, as a purely recharged battery alternative simply isn't a good option, even if our national grids were up to the task (of which our power grids are sadly far from accommodating that kind of added energy demand, much less do we have the kind of electrical cache of mostly fossil derived energy that's anything but sufficiently clean or renewable). However, what part of the power stroke on behalf of a typical four cycle ICE is extracting usable energy? Do you think it's ever as much as 50% of that power stroke? Think of all those components going around and around, as well as up and down for no apparent good reason, and continually wearing out. Now think of a clean little radial power only turbine stage that's given h2o2 and diesel or best using the much greater energy density per kg worth of low sulphur heating oil, as dual injected into a small ceramic combustion chamber, that's basically getting rid of that efficiently created thermal dynamic energy by way of utilizing that radial exhaust power wheel. In a one cycle ICE there's but one active component in motion, and it's directly driving an efficient alternator that's producing a great many of those clean electrons. This radial element of rotation also represents a 100% thermal dynamic worthy power stroke per thermal dynamic cycle, thus at minimum offering an 8 fold improvement over that pathetic four cycle ICE that's puking and farting out CO2, NOx, plus sharing a good half dozen or more kinds of nasty elements, as well as wearing itself out as it's otherwise wasting thermal dynamic energy potential like there's no tomorrow. Even if it were given a two stage radial power conversion of extracting the most from the available thermaldynamics at play, it's still a single combined unit of torque output of common rotation that's directly driving that alternator, that's producing those squeaky clean electrons. The city and/or commute driving which is 90% or more of what a given Hummer or GM Volt will likely service, is not about the sustained 70 mph long haul which the kind of Eeyore's insurmountable naysayism is insisting upon. Even such long haul applications in America (excluding Texas) are not likely to average over 60 mph, which is a big energy difference if you are driving such an aerobraking brick like Hummer, and especially with those conventional show-off and tell- all macho tires that are often designed in order to make more under- inflated tire road noise than a pair of Harley Hogs. Of course, if the true underlying motive or hidden agenda of those lost souls like Eeyore is to stay the course, and to subsequently contribute as much their soot, CO2 and NOx plus a dozen other toxic elements into our h2o bloated and otherwise mostly N2 atmosphere, in which case there's not a viable solution in sight, nor will there ever be anything except war upon war over the spendy and somewhat bloody remainders of fossil and yellowcake energy, as well as for the vast amounts of fresh water that's taken on behalf of burning and/or processing such nasty derived energy. Sadly, none of this makes any sense to a true blue all-american infomercial lord of disinformation spewing and stay-the-course bigot, that hasn't once in their pathetic life contributed a positive/constructive thought on behalf of salvaging our badly failing environment, that is unless there's an offshore bank account stuffing process taking place in his/her name, or the names of those within his/her swarm that's usually faith-based Yiddish, if not worse. - Brad Guth -
From: BradGuth on 26 Sep 2007 14:06 On Sep 26, 8:00 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > BradGuthwrote: > > Eeyore wrote: > > > BradGuthwrote: > > > > John Larkin wrote: > > > > >BradGuth<bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >The likes of Warren Buffett, William Mook and myself will take care of > > > > > >supplying all the spare/surplus capacity of clean renewable energy for > > > > > >creating such nifty products of stored energy, > > > > > > Hey, talk to Warren lately? How'd he doing? > > > > > He's doing loads better off than most of us combined, and he's damn > > > > proud of it. Must have a little something to do with all of that > > > > renewable and clean energy he's providing us > > > > What clean energy is that ? > > > Now you're being that silly jewboy of denial again, arnt you. > > Answer the DAMN QUESTION ! > > What clean energy is that ? There isn't any is there ? Another thing you just > made up in your feeble little mind. Is this another Yiddish joke? a trick question, or what? Are you and others of your silly ExxonMobil kind even from Earth? - Brad Guth -
From: Rich Grise on 26 Sep 2007 14:22 On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:02:52 -0700, John Larkin wrote: > On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:28:58 -0700, bill <ford_prefect42(a)hotmail.com> > >>> 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'" >> >> 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. Heck, Evel Kneivel made it several hundred feet on the stuff. ;-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evel_Knievel#Snake_River_Canyon Cheers! Rich
From: Rich Grise on 26 Sep 2007 14:35
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 08:01:49 +0000, JosephKK wrote: > BradGuth bradguth(a)gmail.com posted to sci.electronics.design: >> On Sep 25, 7:02 pm, John Larkin .... >>> And it still sounds line an insanely inefficient way to transport >>> oxygen for combustion. Not to mention dangerous. >>> >>> Still, it's interesting. >> >> 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? > > So wuss, when are you going to build an 100 mpg vehicle. It's been done. It's called a "scooter". ;-) Cheers! Rich |