The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: JosephKK on 3 Oct 2007 23:33 jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com posted to sci.electronics.design: > In sci.physics Rich Grise <rich(a)example.net> wrote: >> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:45:03 +0000, jimp wrote: >> > In sci.physics Rich Grise <rich(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. > > Liquids don't ignite. > > If you are so very sure about, that i suggest that you try mixing unsymmetrical di-methyl hydrazine (UDMH) and red fuming nitric acid (RFNA) (glacial). Take very serious precautions and read the relevant MSDS before making the attempt.
From: JosephKK on 3 Oct 2007 23:49 BradGuth bradguth(a)gmail.com posted to sci.electronics.design: > On Oct 3, 3:01 pm, me <m...(a)here.net> wrote: >> Willie.Moo...(a)gmail.com wrote >> innews:1191443349.557862.97250(a)r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: >> >> >On Oct 3, 12:45 pm, j...(a)specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >> In sci.physics Rich Grise <r...(a)example.net> wrote: >> >> snip >> >> >> >> >The hydrogen is sent through teflon coated pipelines at high >> >presure >> >to underground strorage in old oil wells. The US has over 1 >> >million >> >of them. A 100 day supply is retained for system stability. Oil >> >is produced from these wells and separated in traps and the >> >hydrogen is purified with molecular sieves (ceramic filters with >> >tiny pores that allow hydrogen to pass and no other gases to pass) >> >> 1 million? So we have drilled 20 per day for the last 136.986 >> years (roughly) ? >> >> rubbish! > > Rubbish is in the eye of the beholder, and I do not behold rubbish. > > William Mook's perfectly good idea 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 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 way too > complicated for the naysay likes of yourself, and besides by then > our dollar may not even be worth $.50 anyway. > - Brad Guth - Perception here is the issue. Everybody who has tried to beat standard physics has failed. If you know so much better, build it; on your own money. Then, when it works, you may speak. You are reminded of Pons and Fleischman. Everybody who tried to duplicate the result failed. Until then go away.
From: jimp on 3 Oct 2007 23:55 In sci.physics JosephKK <joseph_barrett(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com posted to > sci.electronics.design: > > In sci.physics Rich Grise <rich(a)example.net> wrote: > >> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:45:03 +0000, jimp wrote: > >> > In sci.physics Rich Grise <rich(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. > > > > Liquids don't ignite. > > > > > If you are so very sure about, that i suggest that you try mixing > unsymmetrical di-methyl hydrazine (UDMH) and red fuming nitric acid > (RFNA) (glacial). Take very serious precautions and read the > relevant MSDS before making the attempt. Do you understand the difference between combustion and a chemical reaction? I thought not. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.
From: BradGuth on 4 Oct 2007 11:05 On Oct 3, 5:31 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > BradGuthwrote: > > 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. You mean that Yids and others of your kind will prevent it. Trust me, we understand. BTW, why don't you not like anything William Mook has to say? - Brad Guth -
From: BradGuth on 4 Oct 2007 11:20
On Oct 3, 6:52 pm, Jamie <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1l...(a)charter.net> wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > > Jamie wrote: > > >>You guys are funny, near us, we have a gambling casino, "Mohegan Sun" > >> They have and have had for at least 4 years now that I know of > >>3 Fuel cell generator complexes. These units operate the main facility > >>100% with plenty of reserve. They obviously are self sufficient because > >>all they ever need to do is replace mechanical things that wear out, > >>which is normal in any generating facility. > > > So where does the energy to replace 'the things that wear out' come from ? > > ha, most likely from those that work there. > you know, mechanics, electricians etc.. > > > Is this solar powered electrolytic hydrogen being used ? > > We don't get a lot of sun up this way (New England). And as I said > before. they have trees all around the place. there are no form of > solar energy collections system there. > > > How much did it cost ? How much power does it generate ? What's the price per > > kWh ? > > I have no idea, all I know is, they operate the facility (all > buildings) with these generators 24/7. > > The only location that is not operating with these generators is > the gas station and store the tribe has which sits just out side the > grounds of the casino. They run on commercial power and are backed up > via their generators if needed. And as for the Casino area. there is > one building that has commercial back up which is where the bank and > things like that are. As far as I know, they have never had to use the > commercial power since they put these units in operation. I remember a > couple of years ago when there was a bad storm that knocked out service > in that area for a long time. There was a near by medical facility that > they supplied power to until that following weekend where they could > safely switch back over to commercial again.. I think that was a nice > thing for them to do. > > P.S. > There is a river just behind the place. I think they treat that water > for drinking and what ever else. > Like I said, the Casino is self sufficient. > > The other casino not to far from it "Fox Woods" does not use fuel cell > generators. They're using diesel for the generators and I do understand > that they are interested in going into fuel cells if they haven't already. The silly Yids and rusemasters of this anti-think-tank of their naysay usenet from hell on Earth don't like independent energy of any kind, especially if it's clean and reliable. Fuel cell generators that operate on natural gas are a little more spendy than the national grid average, but in some locations that grid provided energy is extremely spendy, so much so ENRON pumped spendy that those fuel cell alternatives are in fact more energy efficient, especially since most all of the process/surplus heat is fully utilized, so that nothing much is going to waste. Don't forget what these ENRON types charge for their power lines getting such grid energy to a given end-user, is often in of it self more spendy than directly buying, installing and sustaining those clean running fuel cells. And, whenever the grid goes down, those nifty fuel cells are still doing their clean reliable thing of providing local energy. - Brad Guth - |