The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: Charlie Edmondson on 2 Oct 2007 12:33 BradGuth wrote: > On Oct 1, 9:30 am, Charlie Edmondson <edmond...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >>BradGuth raved: >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>On Sep 29, 3:32 pm, "daestrom" <daestrom(a)NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> >>>wrote: >> >>>>"BradGuth" <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >>>>Why bother with h2o2? Straight O2 would result in even higher temperatures. >> >>>LO2 or LOX is a wee bit spendy/tough to store in sufficient volume and/ >>>or for any extended time, whereas a composite reinforced storage tank >>>of high-test h2o2 is good for at least a month at a time without >>>losing 10% of its poop (possibly as little as -5%/month). >> >>>- Brad Guth - >> >>LMAO! Braddie thinks LOX is hard to store, when he is talking about >>high-purity H2O2! At least LOX doesn't spontaneously decompose if you >>get a speck of dust in it! ;-) > > > NO, instead LOx makes most everything extremely testy and very > explosive worthy, as otherwise being a very use it or lose it kind of > fluid. It's sort of why LOx is so often used for rocket fuel. > - Brad Guth - > Hey Braddie, I wasn't saying LOX was safe! I was saying, compared to H2O2, it is soda water! 8-) Charlie
From: bill on 2 Oct 2007 15:28 On Oct 2, 12:33 pm, Charlie Edmondson <edmond...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > BradGuth wrote: > > On Oct 1, 9:30 am, Charlie Edmondson <edmond...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > >>BradGuth raved: > > >>>On Sep 29, 3:32 pm, "daestrom" <daestrom(a)NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> > >>>wrote: > > >>>>"BradGuth" <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>>>Why bother with h2o2? Straight O2 would result in even higher temperatures. > > >>>LO2 or LOX is a wee bit spendy/tough to store in sufficient volume and/ > >>>or for any extended time, whereas a composite reinforced storage tank > >>>of high-test h2o2 is good for at least a month at a time without > >>>losing 10% of its poop (possibly as little as -5%/month). > > >>>- Brad Guth - > > >>LMAO! Braddie thinks LOX is hard to store, when he is talking about > >>high-purity H2O2! At least LOX doesn't spontaneously decompose if you > >>get a speck of dust in it! ;-) > > > NO, instead LOx makes most everything extremely testy and very > > explosive worthy, as otherwise being a very use it or lose it kind of > > fluid. It's sort of why LOx is so often used for rocket fuel. > > - Brad Guth - > > Hey Braddie, > I wasn't saying LOX was safe! I was saying, compared to H2O2, it is > soda water! 8-) > > Charlie As an example of the scale of the issue, you can go to the local welding supply store and for $100 get a 50 gallon tank of LOX, 50 gallons of high purity H2O2 cannot be purchased *anywhere* without some rather extravagant licensing and permitting.
From: daestrom on 2 Oct 2007 17:59 "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message news:3aq8t4-u38.ln1(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net... > In sci.physics, BradGuth > <bradguth(a)gmail.com> > wrote > on Mon, 01 Oct 2007 16:19:59 -0700 > <1191280799.545597.239290(a)n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>: >> On Sep 30, 11:20 pm, The Ghost In The Machine >> <ew...(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote: >>> >>> Where? Oh, you must be seeing things again. In any event, anyone >>> who knows chemistry can figure out the above fact. I'm still curious >>> as to how you get 40 kW/m^3 from variants of solar energy. >> >> A 100~125 meter tall tower will take up roughly 100 m2 worth of >> surface footprint at it's base, that which can't easily be utilized >> for all that much other than a fluid storage tank or perhaps on behalf >> whatever fluid processing that could rather easily be contained within >> the somewhat less than 100 m2 interior. However, on top of this >> sucker is a good 3.5~4.5 MW wind turbine, and well enough below the >> blade sweep is a very large DVD like disk of those 25% efficient PV >> cells (we're talking better than twice that amount if using William >> Mook's multi-band and special lens enhanced PV cells) that'll track >> sunrise to sunset, as well enough elevated above the local terrain and >> whatever trees so that full solar benefit is easily maintained. > > The only problem is that those solar cells cast a shadow. Is there > anything nearby? Oh, another tower? Won't do that other tower > much good, will it? > Or worse, modules around the one tower. The idea of one 8000 m2 PV disk tracking the daily sun is pretty daunting. But if you break it up into several smaller modules, say 100 of 80m2 each, then when the sun isn't directly overhead, the modules closest to the sun are casting shadows on the ones directly behind them. Space them out far enough that you can get full sun on all of them for about six hours a day and you just about double the distance between them. Any more than that and simple trigonometry expands the spacing needed very quickly. > Oops. Yep, it's a pretty big 'oops'. daestrom
From: John Larkin on 2 Oct 2007 18:49 On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 17:59:32 -0400, "daestrom" <daestrom(a)NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote: > >"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message >news:3aq8t4-u38.ln1(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net... >> In sci.physics, BradGuth >> <bradguth(a)gmail.com> >> wrote >> on Mon, 01 Oct 2007 16:19:59 -0700 >> <1191280799.545597.239290(a)n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>: >>> On Sep 30, 11:20 pm, The Ghost In The Machine >>> <ew...(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> Where? Oh, you must be seeing things again. In any event, anyone >>>> who knows chemistry can figure out the above fact. I'm still curious >>>> as to how you get 40 kW/m^3 from variants of solar energy. >>> >>> A 100~125 meter tall tower will take up roughly 100 m2 worth of >>> surface footprint at it's base, that which can't easily be utilized >>> for all that much other than a fluid storage tank or perhaps on behalf >>> whatever fluid processing that could rather easily be contained within >>> the somewhat less than 100 m2 interior. However, on top of this >>> sucker is a good 3.5~4.5 MW wind turbine, and well enough below the >>> blade sweep is a very large DVD like disk of those 25% efficient PV >>> cells (we're talking better than twice that amount if using William >>> Mook's multi-band and special lens enhanced PV cells) that'll track >>> sunrise to sunset, as well enough elevated above the local terrain and >>> whatever trees so that full solar benefit is easily maintained. >> >> The only problem is that those solar cells cast a shadow. Is there >> anything nearby? Oh, another tower? Won't do that other tower >> much good, will it? >> > >Or worse, modules around the one tower. The idea of one 8000 m2 PV disk >tracking the daily sun is pretty daunting. But if you break it up into >several smaller modules, say 100 of 80m2 each, then when the sun isn't >directly overhead, the modules closest to the sun are casting shadows on the >ones directly behind them. Space them out far enough that you can get full >sun on all of them for about six hours a day and you just about double the >distance between them. Any more than that and simple trigonometry expands >the spacing needed very quickly. Presumably you locate a windmill where there's lots of wind, which will now and then blow away the solar arrays. And at night, and on cloudy days, the power comes from... where? John
From: krw on 2 Oct 2007 19:33
In article <qji5g350cptmj32odgpri3r3hobin24fcj(a)4ax.com>, jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com says... > On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 17:59:32 -0400, "daestrom" > <daestrom(a)NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote: > > >Or worse, modules around the one tower. The idea of one 8000 m2 PV disk > >tracking the daily sun is pretty daunting. But if you break it up into > >several smaller modules, say 100 of 80m2 each, then when the sun isn't > >directly overhead, the modules closest to the sun are casting shadows on the > >ones directly behind them. Space them out far enough that you can get full > >sun on all of them for about six hours a day and you just about double the > >distance between them. Any more than that and simple trigonometry expands > >the spacing needed very quickly. > > Presumably you locate a windmill where there's lots of wind, which > will now and then blow away the solar arrays. > > And at night, and on cloudy days, the power comes from... where? H202 powered generators powering light bulbs, shining on the solar arrays. Why, you have a problem with H2O2? -- Keith |