The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 27 Sep 2007 11:04 On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 07:20:50 GMT, "rick_sobie(a)hotmail.com" <me(a)my.com> wrote: >In article <1190872027.066616.315250(a)22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>, >ford_prefect42(a)hotmail.com says... >> >> >>On Sep 26, 6:57 pm, rick_so...(a)hotmail.com wrote: >>> On Sep 26, 11:48 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > rick_so...(a)hotmail.com wrote: >>> > > Yeah this is really difficult to duplicate. It is rocket science. >>> > > Someday scientists will study it. >>> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYNwuLL_pOE >>> >>> > Scientists have known about electrolysis for a LONG LONG time. >>> >>> > You get less energy back (as flammable gases) than you put in (as >electricity). >>> >>> > It's a waste of energy. >>> >>> > Graham >>> >>> lol Oh yes we believe you. >>> >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSdxEonivNU&mode=related&search= >> >> The second law of thermos guarantees that you will lose energy in >>ANY chemical or physical process. >> Electricity production from coal is a chemical/physical process >>(60% efficient at best) >> Electrolysis is a chemical process. (90-95% efficient) >> Compression is a physical process (80% efficient) >> combustion is a chemical process (30% efficient) >> For a fuel to wheels efficiency of 13%. >> Burning the fuel directly in the car is 30% efficient. so >>it takes more than twice the original btus of fuel to move the car >>using electrolyzed hydrogen compared to direct burning. >> By comparison, battery storage on the car gives 60% (generation) - >>> 90% (storage round trip) -> 90% (motor) for a fuel to wheels of 49%, >>or a little more than half the btus of fuel for an ev to move the same >>mileage. >> > >And bumble bees cannot fly. > They sure can't do math. John
From: John Fields on 27 Sep 2007 11:18 On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 08:04:41 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 07:20:50 GMT, "rick_sobie(a)hotmail.com" <me(a)my.com> >wrote: >>And bumble bees cannot fly. >> > >They sure can't do math. --- They can't write it down, but they can sure do it. -- JF
From: Rich Grise on 27 Sep 2007 13:22 On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 00:00:59 +0100, Eeyore wrote: > Punjab The Sailor Man wrote: > >> Plutonium batteries last longer. A nuclear powered car only needs >> refueling once in 20 years with unlimited mileage. You could plug your >> house into it. > > And without a biological shield that kills the nuclear car idea stone > dead, you'll also be able to save on lighting bills since you'll be > glowing in the dark. I see you're another one of those who received his science education primarily from "B" sci-fi movies. ;-) Cheers! Rich
From: Eeyore on 27 Sep 2007 13:29 John Fields wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > >Jamie wrote: > >> Eeyore wrote: > >> > Androcles wrote: > >> > > >> >>Cars are 18% efficient > >> > > >> > > >> > Only in the USA are they that bad. > >> > > >> > > >> There you go again! > > > >It's TRUE. American cars are notoriously inefficient. > > --- > Got some data? Your EPA and NHTSA have all the data you could want regarding the matter. Graham
From: Rich Grise on 27 Sep 2007 13:29
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 07:20:50 +0000, rick_sobie(a)hotmail.com wrote: >> > And bumble bees cannot fly. They couldn't if they had fixed wings. But they seem to have learned a trick - they FLAP them! Imagine your surprise! (Hint - a helicopter can't fly if its rotor isn't rotating.) If your water-powered car is such a great idea, just build one and show us! Good Luck! Rich |