The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 4 Oct 2007 18:30 On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 19:37:43 GMT, Rich Grise <rich(a)example.net> wrote: >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. > Yeah, I had that once. It was very painful. John
From: John Larkin on 4 Oct 2007 18:37 On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 20:56:39 GMT, Rich Grise <rich(a)example.net> wrote: >On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 13:43:36 -0700, John Larkin wrote: >> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 12:45:06 -0700, BradGuth <bradguth(a)gmail.com> >>> >>>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, >> >> I get it. The solar cells have more output when they're closer to the >> sun. Good idea. > >I wonder if there's a measurable difference in solar influx between, >say, Death Valley and the top of Mount Everest? > >Although, you can't put solar panels on top of Everest, if they >get in the way of the LIM mass-driver spacecraft launcher. ;-) > Not to mention the winds, which hit 180 mph or something. Speaking of wind, this is really scairy: http://www.solarray.com/TechGuides/Racks_T.php John
From: Jamie on 4 Oct 2007 19:53 BradGuth wrote: > On Oct 3, 7:02 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> > wrote: > >>Jamie wrote: >> >>> Like I said, the Casino is self sufficient. >> >>Clearly totally untrue as they use natural gas.www.mohegan.nsn.us/docs/Mohegan_Sun_Report_Final.pdf >> >>As ever you simply can't get anything right. > > > My goodness, are we having another bad fuckology day, or what? > > Any more naysayism and you'd turn yourself into another black hole, > like many other silly Yids of your kind that suck and blow. > > BTW, at least their natural gas is somewhat dirt cheap and a whole lot > cleaner than any of your coal, h2o and N2 fired alternatives, and it's > not even radioactive for tens of thousands of years after the fact. > > Say again why you so hate humanity and don't give a flying puck about > our environment. (isn't it that pesky Hitler cloning thing again?) > - Brad Guth - > Well, I just said they had fuel cell generators. I never made comment as to what kind.. That was a lead in for some one else to figure out here. (no names mentioned) :) It's funny how something can get twisted here! I will say how ever that the electric company (CL&P) is working on building hydrogen generators.. One soon to be started at a Technical Trade school location to supply a small area. We'll see how that works out. -- "I'm never wrong, once i thought i was, but was mistaken" Real Programmers Do things like this. http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5
From: krw on 4 Oct 2007 19:48 In article <0aqag3dsg5b5o55af2t1e683nte7gnkii2(a)4ax.com>, jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com says... > On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 19:37:43 GMT, Rich Grise <rich(a)example.net> wrote: > > >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. > > > > Yeah, I had that once. It was very painful. Did they give you penicillin for it? -- Keith
From: Eeyore on 4 Oct 2007 19:48
BradGuth wrote: > Very good, now imagine if those units were running on William Mook's > efficiently obtained H2, Willie Mook hasn't made any " efficiently obtained H2 ". Get back to us when he has OK ? I won't wait up. Graham |