The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: BradGuth on 3 Oct 2007 18:55 On Oct 3, 1:28 pm, Rich Grise <r...(a)example.net> wrote: > On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:45:03 +0000, jimp wrote: > > In sci.physics Rich Grise <r...(a)example.net> wrote: > >> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 06:39:36 -0700, bill wrote: > > [about LOX, H2O2, etc.] > ... > > >> > I don't know if such a thing would really work, or what its > >> > effects on an engine would be, but its a kinda cool idea. I might > >> > make tinkering with it a winter project. > > >> You'll never get back the energy it took to liquefy the O2. > > > Nothing is going to ignite until it is gas; that's what the intake > > and compression strokes are for. > > Filling a TDC cylinder with liquid fuel and liquid O2, I bet they'd > ignite real good, if the LOX doesn't freeze the fuel; you might need > a lot of energy to make a spark through it, however. Use at least 100 bar injection, if not 1000 bar. Using h2o2 + fossil whatever will likely ignite itself, as should LO2-- >O2 and fossil whatever. - Brad Guth -
From: John Larkin on 3 Oct 2007 19:58 On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:20:40 -0700, BradGuth <bradguth(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Oct 3, 2:11 pm, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 20:29:09 -0000, Willie.Moo...(a)gmail.com wrote: >> >> >THE ANSWER - LOW COST HYDROGEN FROM SUNLIGHT >> >> >One simple solution I have is to reduce the cost of photovoltaics to >> >less than 7 cents a peak watt - and use that DC power to produce >> >hydrogen from DI water at very los cost. Then store that hydrogen in >> >empty oil wells - about 100 day supply is needed for a stable national >> >hydrogen supply system.. >> >> 7 cents a watt would be wonderful, but it's about 30:1 away from what >> anybody is doing, even at the research level. And if we had such >> power, the first rational use is to dump it into the grid, not convert >> it to hydrogen at absurd net efficiency. >> >> Low cost solar would be great, but there's no particular link to >> hydrogen. Too many "advanced" energy concepts are predicated on >> ultra-cheap solar power, cheap enough to waste prodigiously. That >> ain't gonna happen. >> >> John > >And your plan of action for the wasting of such spare/surplus clean >energy is ???? >- Brad Guth - There's some debate about whether silicon solar cell arrays *ever* deliver back the energy it took to manufacture them. And when I see projections of 20+ year lifetimes for solar arrays, with no significant maintanance budget, I know I'm dealing with dreamers. And let's not forget the batteries, the inverters, and the fun with wind storms. Here, in San Francisco, rooftop solar is a fad, despite being pretty far north and having maybe 1/3 of the days where the sun actually shines. It's going to be fun when all those roofs start leaking, and the panels need to be removed to get at the roof. John
From: BradGuth on 3 Oct 2007 20:00 On Oct 2, 12:28 pm, bill <ford_prefec...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 2, 12:33 pm, Charlie Edmondson <edmond...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > > > > >BradGuthwrote: > > > On Oct 1, 9:30 am, Charlie Edmondson <edmond...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > > >>BradGuthraved: > > > >>>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. That's because h2o2 is clearly so much better at giving back its energy than LOx. (too damn good in many situations, so you'd best know exactly what you're doing, or else) - Brad Guth -
From: BradGuth on 3 Oct 2007 20:26 On Oct 3, 4:58 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:20:40 -0700,BradGuth<bradg...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > >On Oct 3, 2:11 pm, John Larkin > ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 20:29:09 -0000, Willie.Moo...(a)gmail.com wrote: > > >> >THE ANSWER - LOW COST HYDROGEN FROM SUNLIGHT > > >> >One simple solution I have is to reduce the cost of photovoltaics to > >> >less than 7 cents a peak watt - and use that DC power to produce > >> >hydrogen from DI water at very los cost. Then store that hydrogen in > >> >empty oil wells - about 100 day supply is needed for a stable national > >> >hydrogen supply system.. > > >> 7 cents a watt would be wonderful, but it's about 30:1 away from what > >> anybody is doing, even at the research level. And if we had such > >> power, the first rational use is to dump it into the grid, not convert > >> it to hydrogen at absurd net efficiency. > > >> Low cost solar would be great, but there's no particular link to > >> hydrogen. Too many "advanced" energy concepts are predicated on > >> ultra-cheap solar power, cheap enough to waste prodigiously. That > >> ain't gonna happen. > > >> John > > >And your plan of action for the wasting of such spare/surplus clean > >energy is ???? > >- Brad Guth - > > There's some debate about whether silicon solar cell arrays *ever* > deliver back the energy it took to manufacture them. > > And when I see projections of 20+ year lifetimes for solar arrays, > with no significant maintanance budget, I know I'm dealing with > dreamers. And let's not forget the batteries, the inverters, and the > fun with wind storms. > > Here, in San Francisco, rooftop solar is a fad, despite being pretty > far north and having maybe 1/3 of the days where the sun actually > shines. It's going to be fun when all those roofs start leaking, and > the panels need to be removed to get at the roof. Again I'll kindly ask, as to what would the all-knowing likes of John Larkin otherwise do with whatever spare/surplus clean energy? BTW, topic rubbish is entirely in the eye of the beholder, and I for one do not behold rubbish. Your out of context rants are typical of yet another ExxonMobil brown-nosed minion, whereas my rants are trying to be as on-topic positive and constructive. Of course you and others of your kind wouldn't see any difference, as you'd just as soon run everything on coal and mostly N2. William Mook's perfectly good idea of effeciently creating and then piping his H2 into those old but trusty oil wells should buy us a few spare decades worth of spendy access to our very own raw fossil fuel (though a shame to waste all of that nifty H2). However, I was thinking along the lines of more like setting up 100 of my 4+MW tower units per day, if necessary we'd also import those required 10,000 assembly/installation workers at far less than $.10/dollar, especially since it's all pretty much way too complicated for the naysay likes of yourself or most other rusemasters in such naysay denial, and besides by then our dollar may not even be worth $.50 anyway. - Brad Guth -
From: Eeyore on 3 Oct 2007 20:31
BradGuth wrote: > John Larkin wrote: > >Willie.Moo...(a)gmail.com wrote: > > > > >THE ANSWER - LOW COST HYDROGEN FROM SUNLIGHT > > > > >One simple solution I have is to reduce the cost of photovoltaics to > > >less than 7 cents a peak watt - and use that DC power to produce > > >hydrogen from DI water at very los cost. Then store that hydrogen in > > >empty oil wells - about 100 day supply is needed for a stable national > > >hydrogen supply system.. > > > > 7 cents a watt would be wonderful, but it's about 30:1 away from what > > anybody is doing, even at the research level. And if we had such > > power, the first rational use is to dump it into the grid, not convert > > it to hydrogen at absurd net efficiency. > > > > Low cost solar would be great, but there's no particular link to > > hydrogen. Too many "advanced" energy concepts are predicated on > > ultra-cheap solar power, cheap enough to waste prodigiously. That > > ain't gonna happen. > > And your plan of action for the wasting of such spare/surplus clean > energy is ???? There is no 'spare energy' nor is there ever likely to be. Simple economics will prevent it. Graham |