The Electric Car
in [Design]
|
From: jimp on 5 Oct 2007 19:05 In sci.physics John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highnotlandthistechnologypart.com> wrote: > 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 An understatement at best. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.
From: Willie.Mookie on 5 Oct 2007 19:12 I am not selling equipment. I sell on forward contracts commodities. The people who buy the commodities don't care about where they get them. They just need them by a certain date. But they pay me today for a discounted price. And they accept the execution risk. Which is equivalent to discovery risk in developing resources. There are of course no market risk since these are commodities. With this money I build own and operate facilities that use solar hydrogen to make gasoline from coal by direct hydrogenation, facilities that make fresh water and salt crystals from sea water using solar heat in a multi-stage flash evaporator, and facilities that upgrade residual oil to gasoline using hydrogen in a direct hydrogenation process. I facilities underway in Indonesia, Australia and UAE. I do not use bank financing or equity financing in any of this. And I retain 100% ownership of the technology and facilities, and a large portion of the output going forward. I will leverage that position in the future to expand my supply chain, build my own facilities where I own 100% of the output, and acquire retailing outlets to create the world's first integrated solar based oil company.
From: John Larkin on 5 Oct 2007 20:11 On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 13:44:49 -0700, BradGuth <bradguth(a)gmail.com> wrote: >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? OK, I take that to mean "no links." Why am I not surprised? John
From: JosephKK on 5 Oct 2007 21:17 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 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. > > Please list any land vehicles whose internal combustion engines run > on hypergolic reactions. > > I do not know of any. But there are plenty of space vehicles that use this combination, precisely because it is a hypergolic pair. The one step upline issue was can liquids burn? These do.
From: JosephKK on 5 Oct 2007 21:22
BradGuth bradguth(a)gmail.com posted to sci.electronics.design: > 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 - If you do not like the reception you get here do not post here. Nobody here is forcing you to post here. |