The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 2 Oct 2007 22:21 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, Calculate the wind loading on them! John
From: Robert Adsett on 2 Oct 2007 20:11 In article <qji5g350cptmj32odgpri3r3hobin24fcj(a)4ax.com>, John Larkin says... > 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. That's why you put the solar cells on the windmill blades :) Robert -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
From: BradGuth on 3 Oct 2007 07:30 On Oct 2, 2:59 pm, "daestrom" <daestrom(a)NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote: > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in messagenews:3aq8t4-u38.ln1(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net... > > > > > > > In sci.physics,BradGuth > > <bradg...(a)gmail.com> > > wrote > > on Mon, 01 Oct 2007 16:19:59 -0700 > > <1191280799.545597.239...(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'. There's no such "oops", other than we see that you're still trying to create that new and improved black hole of denial and naysayism vortex again, arnt you. Why don't we just plug everything that needs energy into your infomercial spewing butt of soot that runs on coal, h2o and extensively N2. Of course we should also come to think, that within much negative derived energy that's so sooty and badly CO2 and NOx polluted (not to mention responsible for those massive conversions of fresh water into acidic vapor by consuming nearly as much tonnage in fresh water in order to keep those soot and nasty NOx contributions down to a dull roar), might actually blow or otherwise suck out the entire grid. You and others of your all-knowing kind that never have to constructively contribute or much less take into account the all- inclusive birth to grave energy cycle, must have entirely missed out on your final masters degree in physics duh-101, therefore independent thinking or that of a deductive thought isn't allowed, much less shared. Our public utility energy grids that are in rather sad shape, as well as mostly pumped via coal is also representing our nations biggest consumer of fresh water, that when the likes of CO2 and NOx is contributed becomes acidic and otherwise directly toxic to most life as we know it, not to mention having puked a dozen other contributing negative factors as also having placed that much greater tonnage of fresh h2o as vapor directly into our global plus moon warmed environment that has more than it's fair share of atmospheric moisture to deal with as is, thereby dragging Earth's albedo down while having increased nature's storm sucker punch my yet another measurable factor. At the rate we're going, within the next century Greenland well actually start becoming noticeably green as viewed from space, as well as physically elevated because of all that teratonnage worth of ice removed. To hear you folks spew those mainstream status quo or bust rants, we should not only stay the polluted course but greatly increase our fossil fuel consumptions at all possible cost and rates of converting such into as much soot and nasty environmental contributions as we can muster, and call it good even if yellowcake is our only secondary best alternative of traumatising whatever's left of our badly failing environment, that has gotten most of everything more spendy than we can afford to use or much less fix. Mean while, we have your born- again resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) that's taking us into WWIII. Gee whiz, does life in your fossil and yellowcake fast lane get any better? - Brad Guth -
From: BradGuth on 3 Oct 2007 07:49 On Oct 2, 6:32 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > BradGuthwrote: > > Where the hell do you think all of that solar and moon contributed > > energy is going? > > The only energy we get from the moon that can be harnessed is tidal. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severn_Barrage > has been discussed since 1925. More than half wrong again. Besides those vast clean teraWatts of tidal flow energy, try a few other vast teraWatts of geothermal, and that still doesn't account for what's between Earth and that physically dark and nasty moon of ours, or the gravity/tidal influx by our sun that has nothing whatsoever to do with those visible or even IR photons. If that sun were a spent star or of less thermal energy than a brown dwarf status, we'd still be getting our 98.5% fluid Earth heated from the inside out, that is unless Earth wasn't spinning. Add that massive and nearby moon's gravity/tidal force and it's hotter yet because, moving so much mass about can't but help cause friction, of which can't but help case heat. - Brad Guth -
From: BradGuth on 3 Oct 2007 07:54
On Oct 2, 6:33 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > BradGuthwrote: > > Charlie Edmondson <edmond...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > > Hey Braddie, > > > I wasn't saying LOX was safe! I was saying, compared to H2O2, it is > > > soda water! 8-) > > > OK, then put your relatively safe "soda water" tank worth of LOx to > > work within a Hummer or GM Volt, and basically go for it, especially > > if it's supposedly so much better off than h2o2. > > Neither H2O2 nor LOX will improve a Hummer's fuel efficiency. Which off-world conditional laws of physics are you using this time around? or is that another Yid secret that you'd only share with the likes of Hitler? - Brad Guth - |