The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: Rich Grise on 4 Oct 2007 15:36 On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 12:29:23 -0700, John Larkin wrote: > On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 20:35:03 GMT, jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>Squirting LOX into a cylinder will tend to cool everything off >>rather quickly, and perhaps too quickly. > > Rocket engines don't seem to mind. The way I heard it, they have a tube around the nozzle where the liquid goes, specifically to cool it - of course, by the time it reaches the combustion chamber, it's probably already ready vapor or in quite a hurry to get that way! Thanks, Rich
From: Rich Grise on 4 Oct 2007 15:37 On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 17:35:03 +0000, jimp wrote: > In sci.physics Rich Grise <rich(a)example.net> wrote: >> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 03:55:02 +0000, jimp wrote: > >> > Do you understand the difference between combustion and a chemical >> > reaction? > >> Then, please educate us. What, exactly, is the difference between >> "combustion" and "a chemical reaction"? > > In the common vernacular, combustion occurs when you light a candle and > a chemical reaction occurs when you toss a chunk of sodium in water. > > Or, in other words, things don't burn until the fuel is gas and the > fuel/oxygen mix is brought to the ignition temperature, again in the > common vernacular. Careful with that "common vernacular" stuff - Engineers probably don't like it very much. Thanks! Rich
From: BradGuth on 4 Oct 2007 15:45 On Oct 3, 7:08 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 17:26:55 -0700,BradGuth<bradg...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > >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? > > Is such a thing existed, which it doesn't and probably never will, > whoever owns it will sell it at market rates. > > >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. > > How can you run anything on 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. > > You've gone from ranting to raving. > > Can you do the math on one of your towers? The best engineers and > scientists can't get wind or solar generation up without subsidies. > It's not like nobody has thought of these things before. That's true, as I haven't invented or even discovered one damn thing. It's all old science and much older physics that hasn't changed nor will it likely ever change. The hard question is about accomplishing clean energy alternatives, not about whatever's the least spendy forms of energy on Earth that disregards human safety as well as having otherwise pillaged, raped and trashed mother Earth for all she's worth in the process, not to mention the likes of collateral spendy, mostly innocent bloody and otherwise extremely polluting wars that you folks can't seem to ever get enough of. A sufficient mass production of those 100+ meter towers, along with their wind turbine driven generators plus whatever extent of the best available PVs that can also take advantage of each given tower without devouring or otherwise contaminating precious surface ground area seems entirely worth our doing, that is unless we surcome to the ENRON/ ExxonMobil naysay likes of yourself and of other coal burning and yellowcake polluting bigots for a buck, that are anything but birth-to- grave efficient or without having traumatised our frail environment past the point of no return. Can you say again as to why you folks so hate humanity, and care less about our environment? - Brad Guth -
From: BradGuth on 4 Oct 2007 15:50 On Oct 3, 7:17 pm, krw <k...(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > In article <4703c6a...(a)news.cadence.com>, edmond...(a)ieee.org says... > > > > > > >BradGuthwrote: > > > On Oct 2, 9:33 am, 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. > > > > What's the combined LOx+c12h26 of clean Mj/kg worth these days? > > > > How much LOx per gallon of c12h26 or fossil whatever are we talking > > > about? > > > > What's the well insulated storage tank of that amount of LOx going to > > > take, in outside measured gross volume, if looking at only a 5%/month > > > loss? > > > > Is that insulated amount of LOx any smaller than a locomotive tanker > > > car? > > > - Brad Guth - > > > Why bother when there is all this nice atmospheric O2 around to oxidize > > my fuel. Sure, it has this nice regulating N2 mixed in, but that way > > everything else don't burst into flames! I ain't going into outer space > > in this thing, ya know! ;-) > > But if you had H2O2 you could be in outer space[*], like Brad. That is true, as the h2o2/c12h26 powered Hummer or GM Volt would in fact operate even better while in space, such as upon our moon, or even while under terrestrial water or within whatever muck, and still be delivering terrific empg as well as contributing zero NOx. - Brad Guth -
From: BradGuth on 4 Oct 2007 16:11
On Oct 3, 8:49 pm, JosephKK <joseph_barr...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > BradGuthbradg...(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. Prototypes plus actual installations that function have been built, and the likes of William Mook and myself tend to stick within the regular laws of physics and otherwise put to good use the best available science, such as those fuel cells running so nicely on natural gas hasn't polluted the environment or taken a bite out of our badly overloaded grid that's getting mostly electron pumped via coal plus h2o and extensively N2 fired, of which that nasty coal obviously works as long as we don't mind a few thousand dead coal miners per year, accepting global gigatonnes worth of CO2 and otherwise butt loads of NOx and many other sorts of nasty elements contributed down- wind or put back into surface and ground water, as well as taken such volumes of having outright consumed and/or vaporised precious fresh water. Those 4+ MW producing towers have been a done deal in other parts of this world that are not nearly as all-knowing arrogant and bigoted as you'll find right here within this usenet cesspool of naysayers in denial about everything that rocks their status quo good ship LOLLIPOP, and it's mostly a Jewish ship of fools and/or rusemasters to boot. - Brad Guth - |