The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: rick_sobie on 28 Sep 2007 15:54 On Sep 28, 7:40 pm, rick_so...(a)hotmail.com wrote: > On Sep 28, 6:29 pm, Maximust <maxi_m...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Erdemal wrote: > > > Eeyore wrote: > > > >> rick_so...(a)hotmail.com wrote: > > > >>> This is what Stan Meyers did. > > > >>> Now I have shown 20 videos of people making Brown's Gas, and I will > > >>> now show you Stan's device, which incidentally before you flame me, > > >>> because I know you hate to see so much Brown's Gas produced because it > > >>> makes you look stupid, but hear me out, I know you people railroaded > > >>> ol Stan and someone poisoned him at the diner, and he was charged with > > >>> fraud and the pentagon stole his patents and all the rest, but keep in > > >>> mind people have reproduced this, and got the same results. > > > >> Bwahahahahahahaa ! > > > >> Stan Meyer was a convicted fraudster amd still you keep falling for it. > > > > Galileo too was convicted ! > > > Galileo had math on his side. The kooks never have math. > > > > One more cover up the majors > > > are responsable for. > > > > Erdy > > This guy does pretty controlled experiments and is getting good > results.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpQHIO2kw58 > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpQHIO2kw58 With this guy above here he tried making a small torch with a blunt syringe on the end of a tube, others have used a valve stem used for filling basketballs, but this guy didn't have an inline shut off valve, on his arrangement, for some strnge reason he never thought of that, and so he couldn't figure out how to turn it off, so he merely removed the tip? Which I thought was weird but inventors are sometimes weird, so it chased back and backfired into his bubbler. Now he was saying that he was glad he had a bubbler, because he was worried that his cell might explode, and well you have to realize that your cell, is a bubbler. The water in it, is not explosive, just the gas above the level of the water, to the top of your cell container. So there is some danger yes, but people are overplaying that danger dramatically, to discourage people doing this. And you will see that in youtube people exploding bottles and making bottle rockets and well try that at home with gasoline, or any of this, using gasoline on your desk, and you will blow yourself up to be sure. This is much much safer than gasoline. But of course you don't want to be really stupid and shove the hose under pressure into your eye, or up your butt, etc. And I am sure I needed to tell people that.
From: Eeyore on 28 Sep 2007 15:58 BradGuth wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > Fred Bloggs wrote: > > > Any methodology for electrolysis with reasonable efficiency is good > > > enough when the source of electricity is cheap or free, such as solar, > > > wind, or water. > > > > Electricity from wind curently costs about TWICE the average price of > > conventionally generated grid electricity largely on account of the equipment > > cost. Solar costs far more still. > > > > There is no likelihood that either will ever be cheap and certainly not free. > > A composite of solar and wind derived energy is currently off-the- > shelf worth 40 kw/m2 from a given tower's footprint/foundation Bollocks. Your stupid fantasies impress no-one. Graham
From: rick_sobie on 28 Sep 2007 16:09 On Sep 28, 8:54 pm, rick_so...(a)hotmail.com wrote: > On Sep 28, 7:40 pm, rick_so...(a)hotmail.com wrote: > > > > > On Sep 28, 6:29 pm, Maximust <maxi_m...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > Erdemal wrote: > > > > Eeyore wrote: > > > > >> rick_so...(a)hotmail.com wrote: > > > > >>> This is what Stan Meyers did. > > > > >>> Now I have shown 20 videos of people making Brown's Gas, and I will > > > >>> now show you Stan's device, which incidentally before you flame me, > > > >>> because I know you hate to see so much Brown's Gas produced because it > > > >>> makes you look stupid, but hear me out, I know you people railroaded > > > >>> ol Stan and someone poisoned him at the diner, and he was charged with > > > >>> fraud and the pentagon stole his patents and all the rest, but keep in > > > >>> mind people have reproduced this, and got the same results. > > > > >> Bwahahahahahahaa ! > > > > >> Stan Meyer was a convicted fraudster amd still you keep falling for it. > > > > > Galileo too was convicted ! > > > > Galileo had math on his side. The kooks never have math. > > > > > One more cover up the majors > > > > are responsable for. > > > > > Erdy > > > This guy does pretty controlled experiments and is getting good > > results.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpQHIO2kw58 > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpQHIO2kw58 > > With this guy above here he tried making a small torch with a blunt > syringe on the end of a tube, others have used a valve stem used for > filling basketballs, but this guy didn't have an inline shut off > valve, on his arrangement, for some strnge reason he never thought of > that, and so he couldn't figure out how to turn it off, so he merely > removed the tip? Which I thought was weird but inventors are sometimes > weird, so it chased back and backfired into his bubbler. > Now he was saying that he was glad he had a bubbler, because he was > worried that his cell might explode, and well you have to realize that > your cell, is a bubbler. > The water in it, is not explosive, just the gas above the level of the > water, to the top of your cell container. > So there is some danger yes, but people are overplaying that danger > dramatically, to discourage people doing this. > And you will see that in youtube people exploding bottles and making > bottle rockets and well try that at home with gasoline, or any of > this, using gasoline on your desk, and you will blow yourself up to be > sure. > This is much much safer than gasoline. But of course you don't want to > be really stupid and shove the hose under pressure into your eye, or > up your butt, etc. And I am sure I needed to tell people that. And as far as adding anything to the water, like baking soda, don't add anything to the water. Use the KISS method (Keep it simple stupid. ) You want to be able to use pond water, if you are somewhere in the country, tap water, or any source of water. You might want to filter the water, to keep your cell clean, and use a plastic tank, for your water fill up. People are actually using this same technology to kill germs and bacteria in water, like waste water, raw sewage, because oxygen kills bacteria and oxygen is released in the cell.
From: BradGuth on 28 Sep 2007 16:15 The Electric Car http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.design/browse_frm/thread/2bfee708dee351b9/9f1a6ac7e2904ecc On Sep 24, 9:52 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > MooseFET wrote: > > Eeyore wrote: > > > BradGuth wrote: > > > > ChairmanOfTheBored wrote: > > > > > > Let's just say that you are not providing us with any breakthrough, > > > > > startlingly "new" information, dumbass. > > > > > That is true, because those related laws of physics certainly haven't > > > > changed, and there's not really any new and improved science from the > > > > past few decades. > > > > > In other words, the h2o2 + whatever fuel combinations are still the > > > > same, still capable of offering a zero NOx and minimal CO2 exhaust, > > > > and still capable of getting 100 empg on behalf of that hybrid Hummer, > > > > or 200 empg from that GM Volt. > > > > Where are the calculations ? > > > > 100 mpg Hummers are simply NOT possible. > > > At 15 MPH with tires so hard they ring, it is. > > > 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, even though a sustained 70 mph wasn't exactly within my agenda. However, add those quality silicon enhanced tires, give that nasty aerobraking brick of a Hummer a high energy density battery/fuel-cell, feed that fuel-cell h2o2 and give that little one-cycle efficient engine its fluids of h2o2 plus whatever fossil derived fuel (such as common diesel road fuel or low sulphur heating oil) for accommodating our little but powerful ICE, and say it again Eeyore, KT or whomever. Obviously a relatively small but powerful fuel-cell like battery of h2o2/aluminum is offering terrific energy density, as being currently doable as is, that'll greatly minimize the otherwise significant fuel demand of a conventional four cycle IC engine that's always at least 10 fold bigger than it needs to be, as well as trying like hell to run on mostly N2. The use of h2o2 along with whatever fossil fuel that's in liquid form (including most biofuels), on behalf of feeding such into a given two- cycle or better one-cycle IC engine that's getting the far greater clean energy benefit of h2o2, is doable as is. The far better energy worthy combination of feeding h2o2 into the compact fuel-cell/battery or stored electron providing unit, along with feeding the dual injected little ceramic radial turbine engine that's offering a one-cycle internal combustion efficient alternative to the otherwise pathetic four-cycle IC engine that's so mechanically and thermal dynamically inefficient (by some standards as pathetic as 12.5% efficient), whereas instead my hybrid alternative with its nifty one-cycle and mostly ceramic little IC engine that's rather powerful for its size will in fact create the absolute minimal CO2 and zero NOx, with more than sufficient on-demand energy to spare, of which this is also perfectly doable as is. The GM Volt for example could achieve a relatively good deal of driving performance and provide that safe 4X passenger car as capable of offering a sustained city driving or semi-local commute worthy of 200 empg per fossil gallon of damn near whatever fuel, and that's no lie. The likes of Warren Buffett, William Mook and myself will gladly take care of supplying all the spare/surplus capacity of clean renewable energy for process of creating such nifty products of stored energy, as well as for boosting our nations's outdated and badly overloaded power grid, or on behalf whatever direct local applications you'd see fit to invest or waste such energy upon, and trust that this too is no lie, as being currently doable as is. Of course as of 50+ years ago perhaps not, but we could and should have been deep into the R&D and consumer applications of accomplishing all of this as of a couple of decades ago, because it's all old physics and of the kind of proven science (much of which derived from smart Yids) that's replicated to death as of before then. - Brad Guth -
From: Eric Gisin on 28 Sep 2007 16:31
"BradGuth" <bradguth(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1190999661.254177.219690(a)g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 27, 10:54 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...(a)earthlink.net> > wrote: >> BradGuth wrote: >> >> > Eeyore is simply a traditional usenet naysaying Yid, as a spook, mole >> > or whatever that's working for and/or on behalf of ExxonMobil, or else >> > working for Hitler's Third Reich. >> >> > Eeyore is opposed to everything that's not of his idea, and he really >> > doesn't have any such ideas because it's not within the authority of >> > his official job. >> >> While you are just a bottom feeding troll. > > What exactly is your insurmountable hatred of humanity and total > disdain against or utter disregard of our badly failing environment > all about? > Not just a troll, but an excellent example of paranoid schizophrenia. |