The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: jimp on 5 Oct 2007 16:25 In sci.physics Rich Grise <rich(a)example.net> wrote: > On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 16:45:03 +0000, jimp wrote: > > In sci.physics JosephKK <joseph_barrett(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com posted to > >> > In sci.physics Rich Grise <rich(a)example.net> wrote: > ... > >> >> Careful with that "common vernacular" stuff - Engineers probably > >> >> don't like it very much. > >> > > >> > 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. > > > > The audience ranges from drooling, raving lunatics to Phd's with > > everything in between. > > > > What would you call it? > sci.electronics.design? ;-) > Cheers! > Rich And sci.physics and sci.energy. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.
From: John Larkin on 5 Oct 2007 16:40 On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:25:03 GMT, jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >In sci.physics Rich Grise <rich(a)example.net> wrote: >> On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 16:45:03 +0000, jimp wrote: >> > In sci.physics JosephKK <joseph_barrett(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >> jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com posted to >> >> > In sci.physics Rich Grise <rich(a)example.net> wrote: >> ... >> >> >> Careful with that "common vernacular" stuff - Engineers probably >> >> >> don't like it very much. >> >> > >> >> > 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. >> > >> > The audience ranges from drooling, raving lunatics to Phd's with >> > everything in between. >> > >> > What would you call it? > >> sci.electronics.design? ;-) > >> Cheers! >> Rich > >And sci.physics and sci.energy. Gosh, I bet you get more wingnuts than we do! John
From: BradGuth on 5 Oct 2007 16:44 On Oct 4, 6:43 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 11:25:46 -0700, Willie.Moo...(a)gmail.com wrote: > >I'm putting together a several strings of 1,100 panels. Each string > >is4,400ftlong by 8ftwide - wired together at the factory like > >Christmas Tree lights. They are transported on a 52' flatbed trailer > >z-folded together. > > Where will these be installed? Got links? Do you and I smell a rusemaster (aka MIB, spook or mole) that's hard at work, or what? - Brad Guth -
From: BradGuth on 5 Oct 2007 16:49 On Oct 4, 10:15 pm, JosephKK <joseph_barr...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > BradGuth bradg...(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: Apparently it's so obviously that you and other rusemasters of your kind don't have a clue. - Brad Guth -
From: Eeyore on 5 Oct 2007 18:00
BradGuth wrote: > What's your problem this time, Willie.Moo? Even Willie's not good enough for you now ? I thought you said you were big time buddies. Graham |