The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: JosephKK on 5 Oct 2007 01:03 jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com posted to sci.electronics.design: > In sci.physics John Larkin > <jjlarkin(a)highnotlandthistechnologypart.com> 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. > >> John > > Rocket engines are continuous. > > In internal combustion engines, the fire goes on and off. > > I'm just wondering out loud what happens to the metal parts which > will be rather hot when hit with LOX. > > Will thermal stress cracks be an issue? > While the LOX will never get to the hot cylinder walls (fairly low heat of vaporization), there are significant thermal transport considerations. Especially at startup in very cold weather.
From: JosephKK on 5 Oct 2007 01:06 jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com posted to sci.electronics.design: > 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. > > How about you lookup hypergolic reactions? TWIT! You were given sufficient to learn better for yourself, but no you just attack.
From: JosephKK on 5 Oct 2007 01:11 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 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 > > Well, I'm an engineer and I like it, especially with a > non-differentiated audience. > > If the common vernacular fails, use equations. > This is NOT a non-differentiated audience. Not much of an engineer, look up the chemicals as i have told you.
From: Willie.Mookie on 5 Oct 2007 01:13 On Oct 4, 9:32 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 17:55:47 -0700, Willie.Moo...(a)gmail.com wrote: > >On Oct 3, 5:11 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 > > >I am already building panels for $0.07 per peak watt and installing > >them in a variety of highly profitable installations. So I am > >producing energy at 1/5th cent per kWh in locations that have 1900 > >hours of sunlight per year or more. > > Where? Got links? > > >(7) Adding an inverter and peak power matching hardware to solar > >panels cost $2 per peak watt. > > That sounds exhorbitant. I can buy small PF-corrected switching > supplies for 25 cents a watt, Their efficiencies are far less than unity, and this is but one step in the inversion peak power matching process and then synchronizing with the AC grid in such a way as to contribute that power efficiently. You're not really getting it. Or rather, you are letting your prejudices dictate to your mind what's possible. Which is why you are making foolish mistakes. > and things like this have great economy > of scale. Yet we're not building a switching power supply, we're monitoring lighting conditions and adjusting load to match it - and efficiently inverting the DC source, synchronized with the AC source in a way that efficiently provides power. If you can do this for less than $2 per watt, you would be a millionaire. Are you? .. > >So, our 1/5th cent per kWh panels - with the addition of peak power > >matching, and with the addition of inverters - ends up costing 5.7 > >cents per kWh. Which is competitive, but even so, only 4% of the > >total power can be generated this way. > > If you can generate electricity for 0.2 cents per kwh, you could sell > it to utilities for 25x what it costs, haha.. did you read what I wrote? To intertie to the grid would increase costs to 6 cents per kWh at best- and reduce the total demand from solar to about 4% of total demand. So, you're only making at most 2 cents per kWh. So, a 1,000 MW generator station would need 40 MW on average, which translates to 240 MW peak solar - at $2 per peak watt - for the intertie - this is $480 million - for that investment you make 960,000 kWh per day for this plant and earn $0.02 per kWh, or less than $20,000 per day. You are nearly perfectly efficient, but you are not making much money, or much of a contribution to the operation of the facility. On the other hand, without all the intertie overhead - hydrogen gas is made to replace the 10,000 tons of coal a day with 1,600 tons of hydrogen gas each day - 100% of the carbon. This requires 20,000 MW of solar collectors but at $0.07 per peak watt the cost is $1.400 million - 3x the cost of the solar panels above. And only 38 percent efficient. However, the value of the coal is $55 per ton, so, that's $550,000 per day in revenues, and the avoided carbon totals 30,600 tons of avoided carbon dioxide. At $18 per ton that's another $550,000 per day. So,head to head comparison of the two processes; Direct conversion; efficiency; 98% peak watts: 240 MW installation cost:$480 million revenue $20,000 per day carbon reduction: 4% Solar hydrogen efficiency 38% peak watts 20,000 MW installation cost $1,400 million revenue $1,100,000 per day carbon reduction 100% Clearly solar hydrogen, despite its inefficiency, is a better investment. >so you should be a billionaire > by now. Are you? Yes, I am. But not by doing something dumb like connecting panels to power grids, but by making fuels and other energy intensive commodities with sunlight. http://www.bni.co.id/Portals/0/Document/Coal.pdf Check out page 5. There were also a number of local headlines generated when we signed this deal. I was interviewed by the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, but despite extensive interviews, no stories appeared. No matter, I've since signed a second deal in Indonesia, one in Australia for coal conversion and water desalination and one in UAE for oil upgrade. Repeat, I'm not by selling electricity, I'm preselling fuels water and other commodities made from by reacting solar hydrogen with products to produce commodities.. I showed above that by charging the same as coal for hydrogen on a heat value basis, that I make $300 or so per ton of hydrogen. Add the carbon credits and you more than double that. But, what happens if the utility already has a long-term contract for coal? What happens if they can't break it? They have stranded coal. That's okay, I'll take the coal in payment that's 6.2 tons of coal per ton of hydrogen. Add another 570 kg of hydrogen to the 6.2 tons of coal by direct hydrogenation to produce 1,822 gallons of gasoline producing no emissions in the process. Then sell the gasoline for $1.80 per gallon making $3,281 from the extra 570 kg of hydrogen. Sell forward contracts for half price in a rising fuel market, and I raise enough to build the entire facility without issuing stock or debt. So, this add on to the primary power business far outweighs the profits made from converting the coal fired plants to hydrogen, and well worth the extra $800 million in solar panels as well as the $1.28 billion for the Bergius direct hydrogenation reactors. The next step is to buy a US coal company and a US oil remarketer to create a new sort of integrated oil company that makes gasoline from coal and solar hydrogen, reclaims mined out lands with solar collectors, and increases the value of the company 25x - more than enough to pay for the LBO/merger and the technology upgrades to make it all work. Then expand on success by providing liquid hydrogen at retail across the nation to supply cars like BMW's hydrogen fueled vehicle. Ultimately, all stationary power plants will be supplied hydrogen gas by pipeline. Liquified hydrogen will be supplied for mobile applications. And by covering a small percentage of the Sonora desert between Mexico and the US, the US will generate enough hydrogen to supply the entire world with alternative to oil. ..
From: JosephKK on 5 Oct 2007 01:15
BradGuth bradguth(a)gmail.com posted to sci.electronics.design: > 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 - Brad your problem is obvious: http://www.gambino.com/funstuff/obvious.htm |